откли колон

в об
ново кни интер ки ка филь конта engl deut espa
нач авт
сти ги вью читат читат мы кты ish sch nol
ало оре
елей еля

Murad ADJI
THE KIPCHAKS and
THE OGUZ
A Medieval History of the Turkic People and
the Great Steppe
A Handbook for Schoolchildren and Their
Parents

Moscow

This is the second volume of the book about the

Turkic people, from its rise in the Altai Mountains
and its spillover to the rest of the Eurasian continent.
The touching narrative and thrilling legends relate
about little-known facts of world history and the life
as it really was for the Turkis in the Middle Ages,
their contribution to human civilization, their victories
and setbacks. Nothing like this book has ever been
published anywhere around the world.

© Murad Adji, 2002

© St. George International Charity Foundation
(Jargan), 2002
Introduction
Europe and the Turkis
Customs of Ancient Rome
Katylik Means Ally
The New Romans
Europe after Attila
The Near East and the Turkis
The Robber Synod and Other Assemblies
Pope Gregory the Great
The Catholic Turkis
The Anglo-Saxon Campaigns
The English Kipchaks
Islam
The Koran
The Signs of Islam
Sultan Mahmud
The Turkic Caliphate
On the Eve of Great Changes
Dissent
The New Europeans
The Crusades
Gentiles and Knights
The Seljuk Turkis
Genghis Khan
The Sulde of Genghis Khan
The Yoke That Never Was
The Inquisition
The Descendants of Genghis Khan
List of Illustrations and Commentary

Ex oriente lux -
"Light comes from the East"…
...and transforms the world

Introduction

In the life of every nation, as in the life of every

person, certain events take place. There are many of
these events. More to the point, life is an endless
series of these events. However, while some are quite
ordinary and pass unnoticed, others are very different
- with the force of a hurricane, they sweep away
everything that surrounds them. The destruction of the
old has always transformed itself into the birth of the
new. This is how eras in the history of mankind have
always begun and ended: with events that shake the
world.
The Great Migration of the Peoples that took place
from the 2nd to the 5th centuries was one such event.
Like a tornado, it swept away all that lay before it and
transformed life on the Eurasian continent beyond all
recognition. After it had gone, the Ancient World - the
Greece and Rome of antiquity - entered the period of
the Dark Ages (also called Late Antiquity, or the
Early Middle Ages).
The Great Migration began in the Ancient Altai. At
first, it was rather quiet and ordinary; soon, however,
all of the vast Eurasian continent came to feel it. It
was then that Turkic horsemen drove their mounts to
the far reaches of the known world: starting from
Central Asia, they reached the shores of the Pacific,
Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Thousands of kilometres
of the territory they had traversed now lay behind.
The horsemen settled huge stretches of land that had
barely been populated earlier. There was no force on
earth capable of holding back and stopping this living
tide that came pouring out of the Altai. All the armies
everywhere gave way in encounter battle.
And in one of history's great events the Ancient
World was trampled under the hooves of the
horsemen.
They destroyed all that was old in order to give
people a new life.
The Great Migration of the Peoples was that most
rare of events: in the history of mankind, such a thing
has happened only once. The world has never known
anything like it either before or since. The victories of
Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors and even
the famous Genghis Khan pale before it. They simply
appear too ordinary.
Of course, the Great Migration did not begin all in
one place, all by itself or all at once. The Turkic
people had been gathering strength for seven
centuries. For seven hundred years they had been
laboriously preparing themselves for it, creating a
culture which, following on the heels of Classical
culture, would ennoble the world of people.
This was no accident; it could not possibly have
been. People adopted the Dark Ages culture (and,
later, that of the Middle Ages as well) without a
struggle. Why? What was different about it? What
was in it that so attracted people?
 First of all, there was the belief in the God of
Heaven - in Tengri, who watched over the Turkis.
This faith of a Single God was something completely
new in the life of humanity. The peoples of the
Ancient World, like those of the world before it, were
ignorant of it. They were pagans. Paganism and a
belief in many gods distinguished this era.
The people of Ancient Greece, for example, prayed
to Zeus and Hera; in the Roman Empire, they
worshipped Mercury, Jupiter and other gods. They
would bow their heads, offer sacrifices and beg for
protection before their images. Save for the Turkis,
the God of Heaven was unknown to the world; they
did not pray to Him.
The God of the Altai was called Tengri, the Eternal
Blue Sky. Under his eternally watchful eye the
horsemen rode out into the world. They rode out
boldly and confidently. It was for this reason that
before each attack, before each new battle the
horsemen would loudly chant "Allah billah! Allah
billah!" - Turkic for "With God", or "God is with us!".
They were always victorious.
Other peoples immediately noticed this.
At that time, they believed that victory in battle was
due not to the warriors, but to their Patron God, and to
Him alone. In accepting the new faith, people were
also begging to come under the protection of a
powerful god: this was the role of the faith in the lives
of the nations. It is because of this that ethnographers
reserve a special place in their research for religion.

…The second distinguishing feature of Turkic

civilisation was iron - the metal that the Great Tengri
gave to his people.
Iron allowed the Altaians to create a huge number
of useful objects for the home, work and waging war.
No one in the world cast iron as artfully or used it for
so many different purposes. Thousands of smithy
forges worked day and night to turn out this precious
metal; iron was then valued more highly than gold.
This, too, drew other peoples to the Turkis.
In the Altai there was a holiday of iron; it first
appeared five hundred years before the beginning of
the Christian Era, when they had just learned to smelt
the precious metal in their smithy furnaces. The Great
Khan himself opened the first holiday. He approached
the anvil and struck the red-hot metal with a hammer.
Each blow awoke a certain pride within the people,
recalling the greatness of the ancestors who had given
their descendants the gifts of freedom and strength.
Only then would the festivities begin: horse-racing,
dancing, singing, feasting and revelry.
It was a holiday celebrated by all the Turkic people.
It is clear that the Great Migration was not just
people moving to a new location; nor was it merely
the conquest of neighbouring lands. It was something
else entirely. It resulted in the irrevocable destruction
of mankind's Bronze Age and opened the way to the
Age of Iron.
The Turkis consciously broke with a past that had
outlived its usefulness and embraced a new,
progressive future. This happened across the
continent.
People talk about this period in different ways,
some calling it the Barbarian Invasions, or the
Invasion of the Huns. This is not true. It is not true for
the simple reason that the belief in the God of Heaven
and iron first appeared among many peoples at this
point in history - immediately after their initial contact
with the Turkis, during the Dark Ages.
The horsemen - the emissaries of the God of
Heaven - were deified.
Even in appearance the Turkic people differed from
others. They had their own unique features, quite
unlike those of any other nation on the planet. The
horse that would become the symbol, or tamga (tribal
emblem), of the newcomers from the Altai as well as
the banners bearing the Cross of Tengri were among
those features that distinguished the Turkis from other
peoples.
The Ancient World had never seen anything like it.
Even their clothing was unlike anything it had seen
before, since it was the clothing of a horseman - a
missionary and warrior who never spent a moment
away from his horse.
No, the Great Migration was most certainly not the
spontaneous exodus from the Altai that some write
about. Nor was it an invasion. It was not "wild
nomads" who left their homelands, but a nation that
had become crowded inside the valleys of the Altai.
They needed new lands and new expanses in which to
grow. It was at this time that the word kipchak first
appeared - a "crowded one". This was the name given
to the roaming horsemen.
When speaking of the Altai, they meant an entirely
different land than that which we mean today: all of
Southern Siberia, from Lake Baikal in the east to the
Pamir Mountains in the west. That is to say, a huge,
mountainous land that stretched to Tibet - this is what
they called the Altai.
There are many monuments to these bygone days -
witnesses to the past, one might say. Sometimes they
are quite surprising. Examine them more closely.
Thus, in 1974, archaeologists found a royal burial
mound in north-western China, a region where
Turkic-Uighur people live to this day, though they
have long since forgotten their true history. The finds
from the ancient burial mound confounded the
scholars. They were completely taken aback by clay
statues - several thousand of them - that showed the
clothing of warriors and the accoutrements of their
horses. They all had their faces to the north, towards
Uch-Sumer, the holy mountain of the Altai. It clearly
was not the work of the Chinese.
They were not Chinese, because there were no
Chinese living here in the 3rd century BC. Their
country lay far to the south, beyond the Great Wall.
The clay warriors are portraits of today's Uighurs,
Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Khakass, and Nogay. Faces such as
these are also common among Kumyks, Tatars and
Bashkirs, but not among the Chinese.
Yet another example, one that is also
extraordinarily striking:
Not far from the town of Rummindei, in Nepal,
there is a column with an ancient inscription. The
Buddhists will assure you that it is a holy place, for
here is carved the name of the founder of their
religion - a man who came from the Altai, from the
clan of Shakyas. The column was raised in the 5th
century BC. It was at this time that the Indians first
laid eyes on the Turkis and were surprised by their
appearance. This is why they called Buddha the
"Turkic God", or the "Buddha Shakyamuni". From
this time forward they would depict him with blue
eyes, like those of other Turkis.
Today Buddhism is one of the world's main
religions, but time has hidden within it a mysterious
trail - one which is, however, still visible to those who
know how to look for it. There is a science of religion,
a discipline which studies the secrets of different
faiths and allows us to understand much about the
past.
For example: in their communes, Buddhist monks
live according to a strict set of rules, one which is
known to scholars. What, one might ask, can this
information tell us? As it turns out, it can tell us a
great deal. To someone with the proper background it
reveals that Buddhism was in fact founded by the
Turkis. There is a great deal in common between the
belief in Tengri and the teaching of Buddha. There
can be only one source for these teachings: the
wisdom of the Altaic sages. This is why the Ancient
Altai was called the Earthly Paradise, the Flowering
Eden: it was here that the world's great religions
began.
They came from the Altai's Eternal Blue Sky.
Three thousand years ago, spiritual quests began in
the Altai. The belief in a God of Heaven was born.
The times were harsh. Then, in order to preserve their
ancient religion, some of the Turkis migrated to India,
Iran and the steppes of Europe. They were called
Scythians and Saks. Spiritual protest provided the first
roads out of the Ancient Altai.
In the 2nd century, the mass exodus of Altaians
onto the steppes began, but the reason for it was quite
different: it was economic. By this time, simply too
many Altaians had been born, and the mountain
valleys were now crowded. The nation needed new
farmland, pastures and grasslands.
Turkic speech has been heard ever since in the
Caucasus, the Middle East and Europe. It was there to
which the horsemen came to open the Dark Ages.

Europe and the Turkis

As is well known, every event has its consequences.

One result of the Great Migration was the state of
Desht-i-Kipchak, the largest in human history. It grew
slowly and painfully, as its borders expanded behind
the companies of horsemen who streamed forth from
it. "Wherever our horses' hooves go is our land," said
the Kipchaks.
Its zenith came with the indefatigable general
Attila; and in the 5th century, following the death of
Attila, the steppeland empire fell apart. This, it would
seem, is the fate of all large nations: they are short-
lived. Desht-i-Kipchak fell, but it was not destroyed
by enemies; neither was it brought down by floods or
other natural disasters. It was destroyed by the Turkis
themselves, by their own hand.
How and why did this happen? There is no simple
answer. The explanation lies in its history as a whole.
From the start the country was shaken by
internecine wars, which caused it to fragment into
dozens of smaller nations. These were not alone.
Everyone else hated Desht-i-Kipchak; the entire
ancient world wanted it destroyed. They did what they
could against it.
Rome was especially zealous in its hatred. The
Roman Empire was the creation and crown of the
ancient world. It had once been a city-state. It then
became a republic, in which the Senate held power.
The senators had been members of patrician, that is,
noble, families. Julius Caesar, however, changed this
rule: once he had seized power, he transformed the
Republic into an empire. Under his rule the successes
of the Romans were nothing short of fantastic. They
conquered the entire Mediterranean Basin. The
ancient world lay at Rome's feet.
The Empire lived as in the Golden Age and knew only
victory. It was not renowned for its crafts, its art or its
religion. It was renowned for its wars. The nation
worked for the Army, as the Army worked for the
nation.
The Romans' main enemy were the Greeks. These
two nations had long been rivals over trade with the
East, and especially with Persia. The Greeks lived
closer to the Persians and had already controlled the
trade routes into Europe for centuries.
The Romans, however, once they had formed the
Republic, soon conquered Greece, and assigned to the
Greeks the humiliating role of Roman subjects. For
seven hundred years, Roman rule held sway: the
Empire defined its own boundaries and determined
the fate of Europe.
Julius Caesar fixed the northern border of the
Empire at the Rhine and established a string of forts
and defensive works there. The Emperor Augustus set
the border to the east, along the Danube. The Empire
appeared to be an unassailable citadel. The ancient
historian Pliny the Elder wrote about these times as
"the unbelievable grandeur of Rome". His words rang
essentially true.
However, thunder could be heard in the cloudless
sky.
The Pax Romana was shattered in the year 312, at
the very walls of the City itself. Her hitherto
invincible army, the pride of the emperors, for the first
time suffered a terrible defeat. Comically, it was
beaten by Turkic horsemen who had come at the
invitation of the Greeks.
The Emperor Maxentius fell, hacked to pieces like
a thin reed.
Following this battle, the Roman Empire came
tumbling down, splitting into two parts: Eastern and
Western. In the Eastern half the Greek Constantine
ruled, while Romans continued to rule in the West.
They were hardly the same, self-satisfied Romans as
before, however. They had only their memories left.

Constantine proved to be a clever and cunning

ruler. He declared the supremacy of the Turkic
religion in his lands, and began paying subsidies
himself; from Desht-i-Kipchak he asked for little in
return. Any Turkis who would serve in the Greek
Army would teach the Greeks to build new cities and
temples, open up new pasturelands and raise cattle.
It would have seemed that the Emperor's intentions
were entirely peaceful.
Constantine thus lulled the khans into a false sense
of security: he had only humbled himself in order to
win back from the Turkis the trade routes to the East;
time and money would then work in favour of the
Greeks. He wagered his entire future on this cunning
scheme.
Put succinctly, Constantine had come up with a
plan to redirect the Great Migration into a new
channel: the living river of Turkic culture began to
flow into and enrich the Hellenic World. A new
culture appeared, one which would later be called
Byzantine.
Byzantium truly became a land where the Altai
could be felt in literally everything. The Greeks
adopted the Kipchak religion: in the year 312 they
began praying to Tengri. By 325, however, they had
grown bold enough to start calling it "Greek
Christianity", and declared the Emperor Constantine
to be God's Representative on Earth. In their minds, it
was he, Constantine, who had broken up the Great
Roman Empire.
The Greek Christians dealt ruthlessly with their
former, pagan religion. They destroyed the old
temples and palaces, and expelled and killed the
pagan priests. What, after the 4th century, remained
Greek in Byzantium? No one can say.
Playing up to Christianity, the Greeks destroyed the
works of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus and other great
scholars. In 391 they even set fire to the world famous
Library of Alexandria, with its rare ancient
manuscripts. No one grieved for it.
However, the treasures of the Ancient World did
not disappear: they were saved by - the Turkis! Today
the world knows about Aristotle and Plato only
because of their efforts. No one in the West now
remembers that it was the Turkis who, for a thousand
years, kept translations of the works of Europe's
ancient authors in their libraries.

When the Greeks burned the ancient manuscripts,

the faith of the God of Heaven was unknown in the
Western Empire. Before 380 official Rome
recognized only the religion of Mercury as supreme;
for other beliefs people were persecuted. This was a
calculated policy: the Emperor Valentinian I dreamed
of recovering lost territory. He despised the Kipchaks
and did nothing to conceal his hatred. Under him, the
Roman Army became stronger than it had ever been
before. Trumpets summoned new legionaries
throughout the Empire as, under Valentinian I, the
nation awoke from its long sleep.
It should be noted that this Emperor was a most
mysterious figure. Who was he? How did he ascend to
the throne? We know only a little.
His father had been an army officer. But this was
not the most important factor in his rise. His
contemporaries noted that the Emperor did not look
like a typical Roman: he was blue-eyed and fair-
haired - just like a Turki. Another indicator: the
Emperor happily accepted Turkic mercenaries into his
army and conversed with them freely. How? This also
cannot be adequately explained.
His first test came in 374. It was then that Kipchak
scouts first penetrated into the Western Empire. Once
they had crossed the Istr (Danube), they settled on the
modern-day lands of Hungary and Austria. Their
example was then followed by an entire horde of
Turkis. Rome, of course, could not come to terms
with this peaceful invasion.
In their very first battle, however, her troops were
routed.
The following year, the Romans emerged from the
battlefield victorious. True, their holiday was spoiled
by the Kipchak embassy that was subsequently
dispatched. They failed to show even the slightest
signs of respect when they arrived at the Roman
headquarters, and laughed raucously at the victors.
The Emperor Valentinian could not tolerate such an
insult: he shook with indescribable rage - and then
dropped dead on the spot.
On their fertile Danube lands, the Kipchak now
established towns and villages - the first of their kind
in Western Europe. The settlers were called Huns,
Alemans, Ostrogoths and Visigoths. Though
obviously distorted, the name of the khan who led the
Visigoths was preserved: Fritigern. He would forever
be remembered in legends and chronicles by this
strange (to Turkic ears) sobriquet.
However, the names of the clan founders have
come down to us free from distortion, the way they
were originally pronounced in Turkic. The Visigoths
belonged to the tribe of the Balts (in Turkic, Sekira),
while the Ostrogoths belonged to that of the Amals (in
Turkic quiet, calm, gentle). This was fixed precisely
in European chronicles.
On August 9, 378, Roman troops once again
challenged the Turkic cavalry on the banks of the
Danube. Once again, they overestimated themselves.
A flanking attack by the horsemen was
overwhelming; after this battle, the Western Empire
ceased once and for all to have an army.
At this point Rome was forced to recognize the
Kipchaks.

Customs of Ancient Rome

Having lost in open battle, the Romans began to look

for success via their political policies. They found it:
through the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I they
achieved what they wanted. Victories were at hand.
Contradictory data survives about Theodosius. He
was a layabout who led a life of ease. In fact, he was a
secretive and clever politician: all of his projects were
surprisingly successful. In 380, he issued an edict
condemning paganism, then another on the unity of
faith. By the time Theodosius became Emperor of
both Byzantium and Rome, he had established the
religion of the God of Heaven throughout the Western
World. The residents of Rome, however, were not yet
ready for this, and the news took them completely by
surprise.
Several people inhabited the Emperor's body at
once. He called himself a Christian, but took pleasure
in the torturing of his subjects. A wicked and cruel
man, he behaved unpredictably, and loved to surprise
his retinue with his unexpected escapades. However,
he was cold and calculating in everything he did.
Neither could anyone understand his behaviour when,
in 382, Theodosius invited the Turkic Horde (a
military alliance of the clans) into the lands of the
Western Empire.
He had invited the Kipchaks, for whom Rome had
the greatest contempt - and the most deathly fear.
Theodosius ordered that they be given estates, but
only on condition that the landowners' children serve
in his army. These estates became, in effect, small
foreign states: those who lived on them spoke Turkic,
followed Turkic law and had Turkic rulers. They were
not under the control of the Empire. They had
complete freedom and independence in all matters.
It is, perhaps, the Turkic geographical names that
the settlers brought with them which speak most
eloquently of those times. There are many such
names. They can be found everywhere in Western
Europe, wherever the Kipchaks settled. For example:
one of the mountain peaks in present-day Switzerland
still bears the name Tendri. Apparently, this peak
reminded the Turkis of the Altai mountain of Khan
Tengri.
The Turkis' free settlements caused something
resembling an outburst of rage in Europe, especially
after the Roman estate holders were obliged to turn
over a third of their pasturelands and one half of their
woodlands to the Turks.
This measure was given the name Hospitality, and
it was this word which was used in the official
imperial edict. It all began with this.
Previously, the strictest of laws was in effect,
forbidding marriages between Romans and Turkis. It
was now abolished. Mixed marriages were now, on
the contrary, welcomed. In Rome it became
fashionable among the masses to wear Turkic
clothing, which was both warmer and more
comfortable. The aristocrats fell in love with the
beautiful woollen tunics, breeches, baggy pantaloons,
and yepanchi (capes) of the Kipchaks.
In Europe, everything was becoming intermixed,
and everything was changing before people's eyes.
Turkis, those "wild barbarians", joined the
Emperor's retinue. They held positions of
responsibility. Khan Arbogast, whose name in Turkic
means "Red Throat", became Trainer of Soldiers, that
is, the commanding general of the army. The
General's voice sounded like a clap of thunder.
As part of the Emperor's retinue, this thundering
boor felt free to do whatever he wanted. When they
tried to remove him, he spat impudently in the
Emperor's face: "My power doesn't depend on your
smile or your frowning eyebrows!" Two days later,
the Emperor was found strangled in his own bed.
A contemporary of these events wrote the following
lines: "The title of Senator, which was to the Romans
in ancient times the epitome of all honours, has been
transformed by these fair-haired barbarians into
something wretched...."
This was quite true; it had become something
wretched. None of Rome's patricians could rival the
Turkis in the arts of either war or state. None of the
plebeians knew how to cultivate the land, raise cattle
or build cities and temples as well as the Turkis. The
Romans were too pampered and weak. The only thing
they had left was their hatred for the "fair-haired
barbarians".
In Western Europe the entire history of Byzantium's
birth was repeated. Here as well, two diverse cultures
- East and West - merged. Here as well, the Turkis
established their leadership, but already in Latin
society.
The East had clearly triumphed, but it was held
back by the Great Steppe. It was restrained by the
traditions and adats (unwritten codes of local customs,
traditional practices and conventions): like millstones
around the necks of the Kipchaks, they restricted their
movements. It was upbringing that prevented
Arbogast from seizing power in the Western Empire,
although it was virtually in his hands - he was, after
all, General of the Army - for, according to the adats,
he had no right to be Emperor since he was not born
into a ruling family. He did not have God's blessing to
ascend to the throne.
The Europeans quickly seized upon this
vulnerability of the Turkis - their bent for remaining
true to the Word of God, and to the law. The nobility
of the Turkis has served to their detriment ever since,
and their enemies have exploited this masterfully.
Unafraid, the rulers of Rome and Byzantium drew
the Kipchaks closer to themselves, entrusted their
safekeeping to them and heeded their counsel. It did
not cost the state much to keep the Turkis around. The
steppe had taught them to value little things.

It is true that even after taking the Kipchaks into

their service, neither Theodosius nor any of the
emperors who followed him were able to achieve the
peace they sought within the Empire. On the contrary,
disorder became more and more frequent. However,
the people from the steppe did not start it: the real
reason was the intolerance and arrogance of the
Romans themselves. Centuries of dominion had
corrupted them.
Though they had become Christians, the Romans
didn't necessarily love their neighbours; this was
especially true when it came to their Turkic-speaking
fellow citizens. Here, both the Emperor's edicts and
all attempts at persuasion were useless.
They were gripped by a mindless hatred. They no
longer wanted to serve in the army and deliberately
disfigured themselves in order to avoid having to
serve. Their protectors, the Turkis, who did nothing to
spare themselves hardship, became objects of ridicule.
The Romans openly had as little compassion for them
as they had for their slaves. They became the butt of
jokes. Poets composed bawdy yarns about them, each
one worse than the last. Even when the Emperor
spoke of the Empire's peoples as being "equal, and
bound together by a single name", malicious laughter
could be heard.
 How else can one understand such words as:
"Those two-legged

They're unbelievably hideous and disgusting. They

look like those stumps that stand like idols around
bridges...." Or: "Just like dumb animals, they can't
understand the difference between what's true and
what isn't...." Rome's aristocrats even demanded that
the Kipchaks either be driven out of the Empire or be
turned into slaves.
Of course, these threats were nothing more than
posturing by the weak. By the 4th century everyone
understood that the Turkis were an integral part of
Europe, while Europe was the only homeland their
young people had ever known. To change this was
beyond anyone's power.
After the Emperor Theodosius's death, his sons
attempted to abolish the "customary gifts to the
army". All their efforts were in vain: the first
generation of Latin Turkis - thousands of them! - had
been born. Of course, no one would allow them to be
turned into slaves. After all, their fathers were far
from the weakest members of society.
However, the explosion finally came; and trouble,
when it appeared, crept up unnoticed. It all began in
the waning days of 406 - on December 25, the
grandest Turkic holiday, the Day of Tengri. The
Romans could think of no better present than the
massacre of the wives and children of the Kipchaks
serving in the Imperial Army. As day broke, the
executioners' axes began to sing. It was they which
would hurry the pace of events.
Having drunk - to the dregs - from the cup of shame
and humiliation, the Kipchaks rose up. A civil war
broke out in the Western Empire. It was headed by
Khan Alarih, a man who had no liking for prolonged
parleys.
He laid siege to the capital. The city, having in the
meantime come to its senses, begged for mercy.
Senators and the aristocracy formally apologized to
the Kipchaks; they paid them generously in gold to lift
the siege. However, it all happened again a year
later… As if on purpose.
 In 410 the Kipchaks laid siege to Rome for the third
time. This time, no one believed the residents' lies,
and the city was taken. The warriors went on a
rampage and sacked the city in retribution.
Hostilities threatened to engulf and destroy Roman
society, but this did not happen. But there was a wise
man among the Romans, one who had understood for
the three decades prior to the outbreak of hostilities
that it was impossible to turn two diverse peoples into
one. However, if they could be united by a common
faith, a new nation would appear.
The idea was suggested to him by the Kipchaks,
their clergy, and the Turkic word katylik (ally). The
Catholic doctrine, or Catholicism, was born. This was
the outstanding idea with which modern Western
Europe began.
This wise Roman's name was Damasus I. He was
Bishop of Rome from 366 through 384. He was de
facto the first Pope.

Katylik Means Ally

Prior to the 4th century, there was no Church in

Rome with a population of about 300,000.
There had been a particular sect there since the 1st
century AD, a few dozen people who would gather in
the city's catacombs. They were later called
Christians. They lived according to the laws of the
Jewish faith: they prayed in synagogues, celebrated
Biblical holidays, and practised circumcision. For the
average Roman, "Jews" and "Christians" were one
and the same.
This was particularly characteristic of Early
Christianity. It was special. The sect's members called
themselves "atheists" (their word!): they did not
recognise the gods, did not have churches in which to
worship and knew neither icons nor the symbol of the
cross.
The authorities feared these non-believers and
subjected them to persecution.
The word Christianity first appeared among the
Greeks at the end of the 3rd century. It became well-
known as a religion at the beginning of the 4th
century in the Caucasus, in Derbent. It was then
recognized in Europe and the lands of the Near East.
Since antiquity, however, in Rome itself, only Rome
has been considered as the cradle of Christianity. This
has always been so, since this is what the Catholic
doctrine proclaims. It also names the Bishop of Rome
as the First Clergyman of the Christian World,
declaring him Pope.

Curiously, the Romans also learned the word

"Pope" at the beginning of the 4th century: the earliest
such inscription yet discovered can be found on the
walls of the Roman catacombs of St. Calixtus. It is
true that he is, for some reason, considered to be
Greek, although they had no such title.
The authors of the Catholic doctrine were
distinguished by an inexplicable logic in literally
everything. It rarely coincided with reality; instead, it
ran counter to it. This, however, did not seem to
bother anyone. This was because Rome was, at that
time, greatly worried by the successes of the Greeks.
Byzantium had, under the pretext of fighting for
Christianity, begun to conquer the Near East, with its
rich cities and lands. The Romans wanted to reply
somehow, to think of something - anything! - they
could do. However, they were lacking in military
strength. Thus, the politicians clothed in the robes of a
bishop got down to brass tasks.
The idea was simple. Adopt Christianity, become
allies of Desht-i-Kipchak, and get what they wanted
with the help of the Turkis.
This is why they, having first heard the Turkic
word katylik from the mouth of the Byzantine
Emperor Theodosius, understood it in a completely
different way. The word suggested to them the idea of
an alliance. Proof of this can be seen in their inviting
hordes of Kipchaks to settle in the Western Empire
(and not in Byzantium!) in 382. This was carefully
calculated and considered. A decision had to be made.
The Turkic patriarch Ulfila approved the Romans'
idea, having seen in it a way to reconcile the Kipchaks
and the Europeans. This was recognition of
Catholicism by the Great Steppe.
The first step was successful. As Europe progressed
farther, it began to speak of Arianism - a new
teaching. It purported that the Turkis' religion was an
"erroneous" part of Christianity. On the surface, of
course, this was confirmation that nothing at all had
changed. Meanwhile, however, a great deal was
different: the words acquired the strength of a sword,
while policy - the word - having displaced the army,
moved forward.
The essence of Catholicism is hidden in the world's
secret changes.
Change - but not by ourselves. Kill - but not by
ourselves. It was not a new faith that was born, but a
policy that would be the essence of the Western
Church for centuries to come. It simultaneously both
was and was not; for it remained secret. Hidden from
the eyes and ears of the unordained: say one thing and
do another.
From this time on everything that happened in
Europe would seem accidental.

Bishop Damasus became Pope when he was an old

man already. He lived out his life in Rome. From the
first days of his papacy he was surrounded by
Kipchaks, since they were the only ones he genuinely
trusted. It was they who instructed him in the
mysteries of the faith of the God of Heaven. At that
time, there simply were no other teachers. Nor could
there have been.
This is the origin of the Church's famous adage,
"Light comes from the East." It entered into its
everyday use for all time.
The greatest writers and scholars of that time were
part of the Pope's retinue; they were then called the
Doctors of the Church, its Founding Fathers. It was
"with their words" that the Pope spoke. It was at this
time that the first holy books by which Catholics live
today were written.
Unfortunately, the names Basil, Gregory Nazianzin,
Hieronymus and Ambrose mean little to today's reader
- about as much as the Bishop Augustine's name.
Legends have grown up around these prominent
thinkers. But the works they penned no longer exist:
they were burned by the Catholics themselves as they
destroyed all traces of the Turkis' presence in Europe.
However, if one thinks about it: who were these
people who taught the elements of Turkic spiritual
culture to the West? To their belief in God? Their
great achievement was linking the Cult of Tengri with
Jesus Christ.
If they were not Kipchaks, who were they? There
were, in fact, no other transmitters of the secret
teachings at that time. In any case, they came from a
milieu which had little, if any, knowledge of either
Greek or Jewish culture.
Europe turned towards the East since light came
from the East.
True, the works they had actually penned
themselves were burned, and their biographies were
rewritten. But something of their writings was
preserved. They can be found in the Churches that had
no connection to either Rome or Byzantium. This is
the Turkic spiritual legacy, with which Europe had
nothing to do. It could be learned only from Altaic
teachers.
The ancient Christian books were, as a rule, written
in Turkic. Religious services in the churches of the
4th, 5th and 6th centuries were always held in Turkic.
It was the holy language of both Europe and the Near
East. There are texts that are more than 1,500 years
old; they are cared for as holy relics, as, for example,
in Armenia.
At that time, only the Turkis had broad knowledge
of the God of Heaven. There was no lack of scholars
or philosophers among them. It is a tradition of faith
that comes from the dim mists of antiquity. From the
Altai. From its monasteries. Even Herodotus
mentioned the spiritual wisdom of the Turkis-
Scythians. He was amazed at the depth of their
culture. In the 1st century, Khan Erke (Kanishka)
demonstrated this brilliantly to the East, when the
Buddhists adopted the rituals and philosophy of the
faith of Tengri at their Fourth Convocation. A new,
northern branch of Buddhism was born.

Another fact that speaks volumes is especially

curious.
The self-satisfied Romans never bothered to learn
Greek, due to their contempt for the Hellenes. The
Greeks responded in kind. In this, however, the
Kipchaks excelled: there were no better interpreters in
Europe.
In the art of translation, Hieronymus - a Danube
Turki, descended from the very first group of Turkis
to cross into Roman territory - was beyond compare.
Having adopted Christianity, he became one of the
Pope's closest advisers and devoted himself to the
editing and translation of the holy books from Turkic
into Latin.
That's it! From Turkic into Latin.
His translation of the Holy Scripture (The Vulgata)
was the seed from which the Christian literature of
Western Europe would grow. To this day, the original
texts are kept in the Vatican Library. They were
brought to Rome from Desht-i-Kipchak; or, more
precisely, from the Don.
The Vulgata (which literally means "the simple" or
"the people's" [writings]) was not even a translation. It
was more. It explained to simple people, that is, the
Romans, the gist of the Holy Scripture in language
understandable to them. In other words, it was
intended to enlighten them, and turn them into
cultured people.
Or consider this fact. At that time, Milan, which
was served by the Bishop Ambrose, was considered
Western Europe's leading (and perhaps only) city of
science and art. People used to flock to hear Ambrose
preach: he would hold throngs of hundreds
spellbound. Through Ambrose's efforts, Milan was
transformed into a city where the Turkic language and
Turkic ideas were held in especially high esteem. It
was a Turkic city; hardly any Romans lived there.
It was under pressure from this "furious bishop"
that the Emperor was compelled, in 381, to move his
residence from Rome to Milan and to outlaw pagan
worship in the Western Empire. In other words, he
acted against traditional Roman culture.
The Latin Kipchaks served the Catholic idea
faithfully. They sought a union with Europe, their new
Homeland, and became Catholics for the glory of
Tengri.

At the beginning of the 5th century, another event

took place in the Western Empire, one that was also
connected with the Kipchaks. In 402, they stripped
Rome of its status as capital, and declared Ravenna to
be the main city of the Empire.
The city had certain advantages over Rome: it
would be difficult for any enemy to assault, since it
was surrounded by swamplands. The only access to it
was by sea. The new capital was built in the traditions
of Turkic architecture, as no Romans lived there -
only Kipchaks.
The city was distinguished by the domes on its
churches and its Eastern-style mausoleums decorated
with blue mosaics. Especially distinctive was its
famous baptistry, where Christians were baptised.
Octahedrons and cupolas - marks of Turkic
architecture - could be seen everywhere.
These innovations were also an indisputable result
of the Great Migration; from them, a new style of
architecture, the gothic, would come. Now, with the
arrival of the Turkis, European cities would be built
and decorated in a completely different way.

The New Romans

In 411 the Roman Army was commanded by

Constantius, a man of amazing gifts. His ancestors
were Danube Turkis. He was not a born soldier; he
was a born politician. He was a wise politician such as
Rome had never seen.
This is what the Greeks wrote about him: "This was
a man with huge eyes, a long neck and a massive
head, which he would bow forward to the neck of the
horse he was riding.... At banquets, he was so
charming and witty that he even rivalled the jesters
who lounged about his table."
Interesting…. A horseman who rode in an almost
Turkic pose. With the appearance of a Kipchak. With
the blood of a Kipchak. With the habits of a Kipchak.
With jesters at banquets. Yet already a Roman. A
New Roman.
Ancient Rome was in those years becoming a
bilingual city. Its morals were changing before the
eyes of the current generation. Everyday life, people's
thoughts, their desires and behaviour - everything was
new. Everything in the Eternal City was changing
under the influence of the Turkis.
Constantius won glory as a military commander in
Gaul. With a small number of troops he smashed the
army of the Gauls. However, this battle was nothing
more than a fleeting episode in his life. The
Commander-in-Chief wasn't worried about the army;
it was in politics that he saw the key to his military
successes. This was something absolutely new for
militaristic Rome - something quite surprising.
In 413 Constantius enticed several large clans from
the Turkic Horde - the Burgundi - into the Empire. He
settled them on lands in modern-day France. There
they founded a city on the west bank of the Rhine.
They were designated foederati, and a new Kipchak
land soon appeared in Western Europe - Burgundy.
Constantius pursued his policy with the help of the
migrants themselves. He was successful. He
understood that the Empire needed Turkic allies, not
Turkic enemies. The wisdom of the military
commander was manifested in this: he did not call for
war, but for cooperation for the common good.
Negotiations with the Khan Ataulf, who was then
leader of the dissatisfied Latin Kipchaks, were
successful. He was persuaded to stop the civil war.
This was done in such a way as to transfer the Latin
Kipchaks' wrath against Spain; there they found glory
for both themselves and the Empire.
It was they who founded Catalonia, yet another new
Turkic land (the name, incidentally, comes from the
Turkic word katyl, "to join").
The conquerors of Spain returned home in honour.
Even the quarrelsome Romans greeted them as
national heroes. They were also granted the status of
foederati. In 418 the Empire designated the city of
Toulouse as their capital. This was a true celebration
of the Latin Kipchaks' recognition.
The Church held Constantius' diplomatic victory in
high esteem. It understood sooner than anyone else
that the Kipchaks had come to Europe to stay, and
now they were the continent's main political and
military force.
On February 8, 421, the people of Rome awarded
Constantius the crown and the title of Emperor of the
Western Empire. He was neither the first nor the last
Turki to become a Roman emperor.
Unfortunately, his life was cut short seven months
after his coronation. The cause of his mysterious death
has never been established. However, Byzantium
almost certainly had a part in it. Not only had the East
vigorously opposed the ascension of a Turki to the
imperial throne, it feared the Western Empire growing
stronger.
Valentinian, Constantius' son and heir to the throne,
was at this time not even five years old; his mother,
Galla Placidia, a strong and devout woman, therefore
assumed power in his stead.
A Roman by blood, she had suffered a great deal at
the hands of the Turkis, and hated everything Turkic.
 Mixed marriages had by this time already come
into fashion. They were called "the fruits of
Catholicism". These "fruits", however, turned out to
be quite bitter, since the Turkis who married Romans
were forced to change their way of dressing and their
names; this was a condition of their getting married.
The Church drew up lists of names for them. On the
surface, a quite inoffensive matter. All the names,
however, were Greek and Hebrew, and occasionally
Roman - never Turkic. This is why true Turkic names
are rare in European history.
A name is the sign of a people, its tamga. It is clear
and understandable. The names Napoleon or Homer
convey entire epochs. This is not true of the European
Turkis. Even Attila was not the general's real name; it
has come down to the present day distorted - or, more
precisely, as pronounced by the Romans.
The Latin Kipchaks' children grew up as Catholics
and as Romans. They, of course, were not forbidden
to speak Turkic or to observe Turkic customs and
holidays. However, neither were they encouraged to
do so.
Such rules were introduced by the Church - rules
with double standards, aimed at inculcating duplicity.

From the marriage of a Danube Kipchak and a

Roman noblewoman came a handsome boy, who
entered European history with the name of Aetius. A
most talented individual and a Roman hero, Aetius
grew up among Kipchaks. The son of a magister
equitum ("master of the cavalry"), he, according to the
custom of the steppes and against the rules of the
Church, was handed over to a Turkic family to be
brought up in their traditions. This old Altaic custom
is called atalyk, or "fatherhood". The boy learned a
great deal while living among the steppe dwellers.
Aetius grew up a cultured man, one familiar with
the customs of many of the Empire's nationalities. His
son was brought up by Attila himself; the latter called
Aetius his brother for many years. Because of this, it
was easy for him to live among both his enemies and
his friends. He even almost became Emperor of
Rome, but was prevented from doing so by Placidia,
the tigress sitting on the throne.
This woman did not recognise the ideas of
catholicism, and was a zealous advocate of war. It
wasted no time in returning to the Empire. Once
again, the country staked everything on the army. And
it suffered a string of defeats. It was therefore felt
especially hard in 429, followed by a new civil war in
the Empire.
Everything came full circle. The people's
dissatisfaction exploded with new force. Their fragile
world was completely disrupted.
The Latin Kipchaks were then being led by Aetius.
With the help of his allies from Desht-i-Kipchak, he
decided the outcome of the civil war in a single battle.
The young general's authority grew with each passing
day. Envoys from the provinces came to see him, and
officials reported to him - to him, not to the juvenile
Emperor, and not to the bellicose tigress sitting on the
throne.
An oppressive dual power ruled the Empire; this, as
is well known, does not last long. A new civil war
stood on the threshold. The Byzantine Emperor
wanted to seize the moment and meddle in events. He
wasn't able to, however; things turned out quite
differently.
A third force made itself known: the Kipchaks of
the young Turkic states of Gaul and Catalonia. They
were led by Khan Gaiseric. He, as one chronicler
wrote, "had a sharp mind, despised luxury, loved to be
comfortably off, was sparing with words, and had an
unbridled temper." In a word, he was a Kipchak with
a capital "K".
His name inspired fear in all who recalled the
invincible son of Tengri - Gheser.
Quietly, with a minimum of talk, he smashed the
combined armies of the Eastern and Western Empires.
He then turned his gaze towards Africa, and took the
remaining Roman colonies there, which provided the
Empire with grain. In 439, Carthage, the largest city
in North Africa, became his greatest prize.
No one expected such a sharp change; the world
had turned upside down. The New Romans had
shaken the Empire to its very foundations: its navy,
army and cities were now in their hands.
Aetius, once again with the help of Desht-i-
Kipchak, nevertheless clung to power: he ruled for
almost twenty years on behalf of the Emperor, and
was Attila's long-time friend. He never actually
became Emperor, though, since the Empire's fate was
foreordained: this child of antiquity had to die; death
was already staring it in the face.

Europe after Attila

The blow from the Latin Kipchaks was devastating.

But Attila would still have the last word. A new
Europe awaited him: the East and the West were to
engage in a duel to the death. This would mark a
turning point in the Great Migration of the Peoples. It
would be Attila against everyone, and he would win.
The Turkic Steppe would then become the Great
Steppe.
This is exactly what happened. Attila's horsemen,
under the banner of Tengri, scythed through the lands
of the Empire; even Pope Leo I fell to his knees
before them. "My greetings to you, O Scourge of
God," said the Pope to Attila. The Roman Emperor
gave him half the imperial treasury to supplement the
subsidies that Rome was paying the Turkis every year.
It was then that the highest mountains in Europe
received their current name: the Kipchaks named
them in honour of Attila - from the Turkic word alp,
meaning "hero" or "conqueror". To this day they
remain the Etzel Alps - the "Alps of Attila".
The headquarters of the Desht-i-Kipchak ruler was
located in the Alps, apparently somewhere between
the present-day cities of Dawo and Innsbruck. Or it
may have been in the Tyrol, which is so reminiscent
of the Altai.
Attila's time was the peak of the Great Migration of
the Peoples, its crowning moment, its triumph. This is
when the Middle Ages truly began. Nearly every
second European was an alien who spoke Turkic. This
means that nearly every second European today is a
Turki by blood.
No one could defeat General Attila.
However, Attila the man was defeated. He brought
this about himself, when he left behind 184 sons. (No
one thought to count his daughters.) Such
indefatigable love is disastrous for any family. It is
especially disastrous for the family of a ruler.
In 453, following Attila's untimely death, his sons
started carving up his empire. However, they didn't
quite know how to go about it. Among them were
both Romans and Byzantines (the sons of European
mothers) who did not recognize Turkic customs. They
began to fight among themselves. They cast the die
and refused to realise what they were doing; in the
process they lost the freedom-loving clans and tribes
of the Kipchaks.
They divided a free people like slaves.
Khan Ardarich, Attila's friend and devoted adviser,
and a greatly respected man, was the first to revolt.
Unwilling to suffer insults, he took up arms. However,
it was too late: the war of Turkis against Turkis had
begun.

Having defeated every army on Earth, they should

have been able to defeat themselves. This was the
only way the Great Migration could end. The war of
Kipchaks against Kipchaks was inevitable.
The reason, of course, lay not in Attila's children,
but in civil strife and human nature. If a people does
not feel kinship for itself, it dies. This is a
fundamental law of nature.
A brother ought not to forget a brother in either a
moment of joy or a moment of sorrow, however bad
he might be, or it is all over. There is first the slow,
agonizing death of the family; then the clan; and then
the nation.
The internecine warfare of the Turkis lasted
throughout the Middle Ages - hundreds and hundreds
of years. Clan turned its back on clan, family on
family. Life divided the communities of Kipchaks into
new peoples, altered their names and languages and
led them to deny their ancestors and their own history.
Brother forgot brother; brother murdered brother.
What could be more horrible or torturous for a
people?
This was a war without rules and without winners.
This, however, is what is called "life". Europe's
current culture is the result.
In destroying the Ancient World, the Kipchaks
destroyed themselves, their unity and their society.
They were slowly being reborn. Their children grew
up alongside another culture and another people,
although they, too, spoke Turkic.
In changing their names, in changing their clothes,
the people themselves changed imperceptibly. They
didn't intend to, but they changed nevertheless. They
became strangers to themselves, their ancestors and
their own Great Steppe. Of course, no one noticed this
at the time; no one bothered to think about it. Life
followed its normal course. However, everything went
just this way - unnoticed.
Kipchaks also lived on the Dnieper, on the Don, in
the Caucasus and on the Yaik. However, they lived in
an old-fashioned way that was truer to their previous
life and preserved the traditions of the Steppe. This is
why they had remained unaffected by deep change,
although, of course, they, too, had already made many
more changes in their ways of life than, for example,
the Altaians, the Khakass and the Yakuts.
Thus, in creating a new culture, the Turkis
themselves perished. They burned out like a flaming
candle. In lighting the way to the future, they made
themselves casualties of progress. This was the source
of their losses and gains - the loss of their former
unity.

Of course, not only the Kipchaks were reborn in the

Europe of the Dark Ages, but the Greeks, the Romans
and the Celts as well. In getting used to their new
lives, they too transformed themselves and their
habits. The Europeans became the New Europeans:
for them, the world had become a gigantic melting
pot, where different cultures simmered together. It has
never been otherwise.
The histories of the Kushan khanate, Byzantium
and Italy are all proof of this. Without the Turkis, the
Greeks would never have created a flourishing
Byzantium - just as, without the Persians, the Turkis
would never have created the magnificent Kushan
khanate.
However, as ancient wisdom teaches, in going after
what is not yours, you will lose what is. One must
adopt the ways and things of others, but carefully and
intelligently.
Of course, the civil strife that swept over Europe
following the death of Attila could be labelled as
wars, but a "dialogue of cultures" would be better.
These were the politics of the Middle Ages - the
politics that were creating a new world.
The Kipchaks were among its creators. In Europe
today, the Turkic influence can be seen no less than
the Roman or the Greek. This was the nation that
defeated the Great Roman Empire; it gave its people
the faith of the God of Heaven along with the gifts of
its knowledge, architecture and literature. One cannot
help but notice the obvious.

After the death of Attila, it would have been better

had the Western Empire died a quick death. It already
saw nothing other than disgrace. In 454, the Emperor
Valentinian had Aetius put to death. Aetius'
comrades-in-arms, however, promptly murdered the
ungrateful emperor. In response to this Khan Gaiseric
took Rome and pillaged it for two weeks.
From this time on the Kipchaks did whatever they
wanted within the Empire.
Khan Ritsimer, once he had become commanding
general of the army, imprisoned and removed from
power Roman emperors as if they were nothing but
boys. He openly mocked them; he changed the
"master" of the throne ten times in 15 years. He
himself could not take the throne because of his
origins, but all power was effectively in his hands.
Orestes, a former confessor of Attila's, replaced
Ritsimer as commanding general. He was an entirely
different person. Violating the adat, he named his own
son Emperor; the latter took the name Romulus
Augustulus.
This Turki was the last of the Western of Roman
emperors.
In 476 he was overthrown by the Kipchaks
themselves, who saw the young man's reign as a
violation of the laws of Heaven. This was done in the
name of the holy traditions of the Altai by Khan
Odoacer, who declared: "The Empire abolishes the
title of Emperor." With this, the name Italy acquired
its own, true meaning: ytala, in Turkic, is the
imperative of "to abolish". An embassy was
dispatched to Byzantium, and with it the crown and
other imperial signs of rank that had outlived their
usefulness. Thus ended the history of Ancient Rome.
Thus began the history of Italy.
The Near East and the Turkis

From the 4th century on, the Greeks and their Church
determined European policy. Church patriarchs set its
course. They would do anything, so long as they could
control the Mediterranean - so long as they could rise
in stature. But how?
 How does a scholarly theologian gain renown?
How does one raise the stature of the Church?
Through their deeds and knowledge. However, the
Greeks lacked both of these. The Greek Church lived
under the patronage of the Imperial Court. It was part
of the state and a lever of power; no more. It had been
this way since the time of the Emperor Constantine,
and would continue to be forever.
Like Rome, the Greek Church demanded no
ideological questing. It did not have to worry about
itself, the health of society, or the nation's future. This
was done by the secular authorities. The Church was
merely another crown - a decoration for the Emperor.
The contented Greek patriarchs feared anything
new; neither did they want to hear about any Catholic
doctrine. They watched out for themselves - change of
any kind frightened them. However, the only real
constant in life is change. It is always unexpected.
Change, of course, did come to the Mediterranean.
It could not help but come, along with the Great
Migration of the Peoples.
Priests from Derbent were the first Kipchaks to
arrive. They were both horsemen and holy men. With
their help, the Caucasus became the spiritual well-
spring of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.
Word of the omnipotent God of Heaven spread
swiftly. People began to hear a new word: Tengri.
Who were these priests - Turkis? Or were they
perhaps of some other nationality? We do not know.
However, it was they who brought the faith of the
God of Heaven to these lands. It was they who opened
the pagans' eyes, who spent many long hours winning
them over. Finally, it was they who buried their
leaders in ceremonial mounds, along with their horses
and weapons - just as was the custom in the Altai. The
royal burial mounds in North Africa have become
longed-for finds for modern archaeologists.
Are the geographic names in which the name of
Tengri can be discerned mere accidents? He was
called Dongar or Dangri in Abyssinia, the Sudan and
Egypt. From these flowed the Blue, or Heavenly,
Nile. Surprising, isn't it?
The burial mound finds confirm that the word
Kipchak was once synonymous with the word holy in
the Near East. The new culture of the Dark Ages was
not planted here with the sword, but through the Word
of God. It was brought by the priests from Derbent.

For a long while, historians knew practically

nothing about the Near Eastern pages of the Great
Migration's history. Its events were surrounded only
by legend. In December 1945, however, in the ruins
of an ancient village (now known as Nag Hammadi),
Egyptian peasants stumbled upon some skilfully
hidden papyrus scrolls. Scholars then arrived to
confirm what was one of the most spectacular
archaeological discoveries of the 20th century.
One of the world's most ancient libraries had found
some new readers.
Each scroll turned out to be a complete book. They
are now kept in the Egyptian (National) Museum,
Cairo. These manuscripts were written in the 4th
century. They contain references to the God of
Heaven and are devoted to the spiritual life of the
Dark Ages. The veil of mystery covering the past has
been, it would seem, lifted somewhat.
The history of the Coptic Church has also told
scholars a great deal. It is renowned for its antiquity
and for the fact that, although they call themselves
Christians, the Copts profess faith only in the God of
Heaven (Tengri).
To this day, the Copts preserve their traditional,
ancient orders of service - the ceremonies taught them
by Turkic priests. Derbent was previously a holy city
for the Copts; it was there that their faith - or, more
exactly, their school of life - began.
Just who are the Copts? They are Egyptians who, in
325, refused to recognise Greek Christianity. They
rejected it as incorrect. From that time on - as though
life itself demanded it - the Copts became the
guardians of Turkic spiritual values.
This was apparently when they acquired their
current name of Copts, which in Turkic meant "they
have been elevated", or "the elevated ones". They now
number around one and a half million members and
watch stubbornly over their faith.
There are still several other such religious
communities in the world today. They, like lost oases
in the desert, live according to their own ways. There
is really no way to approach them.

From ancient times, Egypt has been renowned for

its remarkable culture - not for its pharaohs, and not
for its pyramids. Also, for the Academy in
Alexandria, which was always its main treasure. It
gave the ancient world some of its most famous
scholars: philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers,
physicians and orators. It was the centre of culture for
the entire Mediterranean.
Aspiring scholars did not go to study in Greece;
neither did they go to Rome. They went to
Alexandria, where they were able to acquire a higher
education. It was there that they acquired their
erudition.
The Egyptians adopted Christianity at the
beginning of the 4th century, along with the
Armenians, Albanians, and Iberians. More than
anyone else, they were ready for the new culture that
the Great Migration of the Peoples was bringing to the
world. The theology of the God of Heaven became for
them the height of knowledge.
Then - once again, from the Turkis - "Arabic"
writing appeared in the Near East. It was in fact an
ancient Turkic script, their common cursive. In the
Ancient Altai, it was written with the help of goose
quills or pointed sticks. For non-cursive text, the
Turkis used runes. These were carved on mountain
slopes and could be read from a distance; the cursive
was used for writing dispatches, letters and poetry. It
was read from right to left, or from top to bottom.
The ancient Turkic cursive was later known as
Uighur writing. It was used in the Turkic world until
almost the 18th century.
The visual similarities of early Arabic and Uighur
script are simply amazing; one cannot tell them apart.
This has more than once left scholars at a dead end,
especially when they have found inscribed
monuments in the Urals and the Altai, that is, far from
Egypt, where Arabs have never set foot.
It never occurred to anyone that these were ancient
Turkic monuments - a written message from the
Turkis' forbears. Everyone thought that the Turkis had
no written language. This, however, was simply not
true.
In the 4th century, Arabic script could not have
been something new and unexpected for the East. For
example, they learned about it in Persia in 248 BC,
when the Arshakid Dynasty came to power. They
were Altai Turkis (the Red-haired Saks). Their first
official documents were written in this script, which
was unknown in the Western world.
The Egyptians, as is well-known, had their own
way of writing, based on hieroglyphs. This is seen
clearly on their ancient papyruses. The new alphabet
was of extreme value, since it symbolized a new
culture. In the Near East, it became a kind of sign of
Heaven. As is well-known, a new way of writing
never just appears, by itself, among a people. It must
be preceded by something extremely serious; the
reason in this case was conversion to the faith of the
God of Heaven.
The ancient Egyptian texts found at Nag Hammadi
testify to this.
Some of them were written in an unknown script, in
the language unknown to the Egyptians. Scholars
therefore were unable to read the texts with any
precision.
They were able to determine that individual
characters of this unknown, Coptic script resembled
Greek letters. There was a great deal of speculation on
this point. It was indeed speculation, since no one
could connect either the texts or the events with the
Great Migration of the Peoples and with the arrival of
the Turkis in the Near East.
On the other hand, one thing is known for a fact.
The language and script, which are incomprehensible
to modern-day Egyptians, were Coptic clergymen's
cryptography. Weren't they really Turkic?
Unfortunately, the exact answer remains unknown.
Not one Turkic expert has ever held these ancient
scrolls in his hands or had a chance to study them.
They must, however, have some traces of Turkic,
since this was the language of the clergy in the 4th
century.
The priests in Egypt later switched to their local,
Coptic language. This is what happened in Armenia
and other countries where the ancient holy books were
written in Turkic, and where services were also
originally held in Turkic, and then in the language of
the local people.
The most amazing discoveries are possible in this
area. They still lie ahead.

The 4th century was a milestone in history. The

new way of writing appeared almost at once among
the Egyptians, the Armenians, the Georgians, the
Albanians, as well as among other peoples who had
adopted the faith of the God of Heaven. This is an
indisputable fact.
The link between the new faith and the new writing
is more than obvious. It is found in the books and the
histories of these peoples. It is just that some - the
Armenians and the Georgians, for example - chose the
runic script of the Turkis as the basis of their own
alphabets, while others chose the Altaic cursive. This
is the only difference.
Much evidence of the Kipchaks' arrival in the Near
East has remained. There is the famous Church of
Alexandria, where services were once held according
to Turkic traditions. It is indisputable proof of their
presence. At the Council of Nicaea, the first
ecumenical council of the Christian church, held in
ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey) in 325, it was
named the "diocese of highest authority".
The Church of Antioch then appeared in Syria; it
baptised and united thousands of parishioners. In
Africa, the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) Church was active;
in Armenia, the Armenian Church; in Caucasian
Albania, the Albanian Church. They all followed
Turkic traditions, and were condemned for this by the
Greeks.
These churches preached faith in the God of
Heaven only, and not in Jesus Christ. They did not
reject the Son of God, but kneeled and prayed only to
Tengri. This distinguished them from Greek
Christianity.

With the coming of the Turkis, the pagan world

could be seen changing before one's eyes in the Near
East as well; it was being changed under the influence
of the new culture. This greatly disturbed the
Byzantines, who had dreamed of inheriting the laurels
of the Great Roman Empire.
In the spiritual dispute over the leadership of the
Christian world, the Greeks lost out hopelessly to both
the Romans and the Egyptians: they had no
philosophers or theologians who were up to the task.
In Constantinople, they were still relying on armed
force and curbs; this was not enough.
The imperial curbs for the clergy in Egypt and the
other Eastern churches were of no use at all. They
proved nothing; rather, they emphasised the weakness
of the Greeks.
How to force the Egyptians into line? The Emperor
Constantine continued to mull this over, but came up
with nothing better than war. True, his Egyptian
campaign ended in tragedy. Instead of trophies, the
body of the Emperor himself was brought back to
Constantinople. This happened in 337.
Then there were new wars. In 391 the Greeks
burned the Egyptians' holiest of holies: their famous
Library of Alexandria, together with its priceless
manuscripts. They hoped in this way to deprive the
Egyptian people of their main source of knowledge.
Thousands of texts were consumed in the flames, but
the Greek Christians were still unable to enforce their
supremacy.
Their swords were powerless. Even as a vanquished
people, the Egyptians refused to comply. Their
firmness of spirit was unshakeable. They began
searching for a path to freedom. Something had to
happen in the Near East sooner or later, but what? No
one knew.
War had failed to solve anything. That everyone
understood is obvious even in a letter to the Pope
from Hieronymus, a Roman papal envoy who, in 396,
visited the Near East. There he found the Kipchaks,
who had put an end to the senseless bloodshed. In his
letter, Hieronymus conveyed the horror of the
imperial soldiers before the Turkic cavalry, who
considered it degrading to fight on foot. As the papal
envoy wrote, "they refuse to walk, and if they touch
the ground in battle, they consider themselves to be
already dead".
It turns out that this was when the famous "Arab"
cavalry first appeared; the date has been established
exactly. The horsemen came from Derbent, behind
"the Iron Gates of the Caucasus", as Hieronymus
wrote. Derbent was a Turkic city; located there was a
Patriarchal See that wanted to bring peace to the
Christian world.
The papal envoy was not in the Near East by
accident: Rome had been worried about the
ascendancy of Byzantium and its quarrel with Egypt.
The Pope could not openly battle the Greeks; instead,
he chose to rely on an old rule of politics: divide and
rule.

So far, the Romans had only managed to divide. A

thick tangle of political passions was woven, and
considerable forces were gathered. They came
together at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This time,
it was not the warriors; it was politicians in cassocks
fighting over the Mediterranean Basin. Would it be
Greek or Egyptian? In its own way, the Church was
dividing up the legacy of the Great Roman Empire.
Rome silently watched the squabbling between its
former slaves.
"Whoever has God on his side, has power" - so
went the rule of Dark Ages Europe. It was followed
without question.
A reason for the council was quickly found:
disagreement within the Church. In 428 Nestorius, the
Bishop of Constantinople, said that the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, should be called the Virgin Mary,
Mother of Christ, since God could not possibly have
had a mother.
There was, of course, some common sense in his
words. He, Nestorius, a deeply religious man, had
been seeking his own path to God; this was all fine
and well. His trouble was, however, that he, lacking
any sort of deep knowledge, placed his trust in the
authorities - the secular politicians. For example: in
order to win the Byzantine emperor over to his side,
he promised him the keys to Heaven. How, though,
could he keep such a promise?
Incidentally, very few knowledgeable Greeks were
interested in theological hair-splitting. What was
important to them was increasing the power of the
Greek Church, and with it, the power of Byzantium.

The Robber Synod and Other Assemblies

It was no accident that the city of Ephesus was

proposed for the council. The Greeks associated it
with the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and the last
years of her life. They had always loved "miracles",
and now wanted to become the "chosen of God", in
order to, with the help of the legends, demonstrate
their leading role in Christianity.
They needed the council to be held right at
Ephesus.
 The Egyptian delegation was headed by Bishop
Cyril of Alexandria. "One need not be wise; one needs
only to have faith," he had said. The Pope - who
expected nothing to come of the council; he wanted
merely to harm the Greeks any way he could - was on
Cyril's side. The Pope understood that the review of
Church teachings would be a review of world politics.
"Whoever has God on his side, has power," hung in
the air of Ephesus.
However, no theological argument materialised.
Cyril's extensive knowledge was immediately
recognised by all and held in high esteem. His
passionate speech to the assembly exposed the
ignorance of the Greeks. The age-old traditions of the
School of Alexandria made themselves felt, and the
contentious issue was settled the same day.
True, the council did not end there. The Greeks
were not mollified. They began a shouting match;
insults were traded until it erupted into a genuine
fistfight. Soldiers were called in to break up the brawl.
The Egyptians won the ecclesiastical argument, but
not the Mediterranean. They immediately began
preparing for another showdown. It was important
that they cultivate success - and find support in
Derbent, from the Patriarch of the Christian world.
It was there, in Derbent, where they heard about the
Trinity, the three manifestations of the God of
Heaven. As the Turkis said of Tengri, "He is One in
Three Faces." The Egyptians decided to bring the
Trinity to Christianity.
On August 8, 449, they summoned a new council at
Ephesus, which went down in history as the Robber
Synod of Ephesus. Things went less smoothly for the
Alexandrian theologians this time. They had
overestimated the effect their knowledge would have;
and out of disgust, the servants of the Alexandrian
Church then began beating the Greeks with their fists.
Right in the assembly hall, they smashed in the face of
the Greek Patriarch Flavian.
The "assembly fathers" were then invited to sign a
blank sheet of papyrus, where a resolution would later
be written in. Anyone who resisted was either beaten
again, or thrashed with thorn switches.
The bishops signed the blank sheet unanimously.
The Resolution of the Second Council of Ephesus,
which favoured the Egyptians, was thus produced. It
was, however, quickly overturned.

It was only in 451 that the Christians found their

Trinity. It was not, however, that of the Turkis.
Instead of the Trinity, they in fact got a duality. The
Greeks had insisted on this.
This happened at a new, the fourth ecumenical
council, convened in Chalcedon (modern Kadikoy,
Turkey) in 451. A new scandal quickly erupted as
well, but the Byzantine emperor hushed it up when he
decreed, in 452, that "[N]o one, regardless of rank or
fortune, has the right to hold public debates on
religion."
No one did any further spiritual searching
afterwards. It was hardly needed; the division of the
world was complete. The Church began to draw
everything from its "Greek roots", including the
history of Europe and Christianity.
The Greeks thus conquered the Alexandrian
Church, humiliated the Egyptians, cast a shadow on
the Turkic faith, and - most important - exalted
themselves. They were not bothered by the fact that
the "false Greek Trinity" was not accepted by the
Eastern Church; or that an uprising broke out
immediately in Egypt. They had triumphed.
The faithful heatedly protested the Greek distortion
of their religion. For several years, Palestine was in
turmoil. People there went to their deaths in the name
of the One True God, and the ground was soaked with
their blood.
Byzantium, having put the finishing touches on
Church doctrine, now conducted itself in a completely
different manner; it even stopped paying the subsidies
to the Turkis, and began to plot the assassination of
Attila. The Emperor Marcian declared smugly, "I have
gold only for my friends; for my enemies, I have
iron." He certainly knew how to charge a situation.
In 453 the open-hearted Turkis faced their first
adversity: Attila was poisoned. Thus, the Byzantine
Emperor became a new master of Europe.

The power of the Greek Church was recognised

only by the Romans; in the East, it was called
"second-class Christianity". The Near East could not
accept it: it conflicted with its traditions, and its
earlier high culture. It planned to create its own
religion - a "first-class faith".
The quest for a pure faith led the Egyptian
theologians to the idea of Islam - the religion of the
God of Heaven, but with other, non-Greek rituals.

In Byzantium during these years, "creative" thought

also was in ferment; it was, however, creative thought
of a different sort. The entire country was swept by an
undisguised wave of story-telling: they thought up
saints, they thought up "miracles". The Greeks
reinforced their own beliefs as much as they could.
This is another contribution to world culture - the
contribution of pagans.
They turned the ancient Greek god of wine,
Dionysus, a son of Zeus and Semele, into the
Christian martyr St. Dionysius. King Demetrius
became St. Dmitrius; Minerva-Pallada, the goddess of
arts, St. Palladia. Helios, the god of the sun, was
transformed into St. Ilius; and so on. A new life was
created for each pagan god, connecting them to
Byzantium.
This is how the Greek "second-class Christianity
for the common people" was. What connection did it
have with the God of Heaven - or religion in general?
The enlightened world watched in horror.

Pope Gregory the Great

The doctrine of the Trinity split Christendom. This

was not its first schism. The Egyptian Church left the
stage of world politics forever.
Rome was another matter. There, too, dissatisfaction
with the Greeks ripened. But it was not expressed
openly. The popes, swallowing their insults,
demanded the same of their congregations. They were
secretly searching for a way out. They found it in 495,
when the Bishop of Rome was, for the first time,
called "Christ's Representative on Earth".
A great deal stood behind these words: a new division
of the Church - this time into Orthodox and Catholic.
From then on, with each passing year, dissent grew
within the Church. But it grew unnoticed: Rome was
contriving to subordinate the Greeks, and thereby
restore its leadership in the world. "Whoever has God
on his side, has power"; Europe had never forgotten
this.
The honour of resurrecting Rome fell to Pope
Gregory, later called The Great. He was perhaps the
wisest man of that period and a true diplomatic
genius.
He was born in 540, into a family of an eminent
senator whose forbears actually included more than
one Bishop of Rome. From them, the young Gregory
acquired a mature wisdom far beyond his years.
Gregory trained as a lawyer and held the post of
Prefect (Governor) of Rome. He inherited a huge
fortune upon the death of his father. He was not,
however, concerned with riches and donated his new
wealth to the monastery at Monte Cassino.
Behind his back, the Governor was called a madman.

It should be noted that Europe, prior to the arrival of

the Kipchaks, had neither monasteries nor any
monastic tradition. They came to the Western world
along with the Great Migration. They were introduced
by the Turkis, who had had monasteries and monks
well before the new era.
In their language, the word abbot meant "around the
Father" (abata, they would have said), while
monastery was the first word of an ancient Turkic
prayer, the Manastar khyrza ("Forgive Me My Sins").
In the West, Bishop Ambrose (the same indefatigable
Catholic Kipchak who served in Milan) was one of
the first to use these words. Sometime after 380, he
founded his own monastery there.
The Milan monastery is famous for the fact that it was
not Christian. Only Tengri was worshipped there. It
remained untouched even by Attila, when he
destroyed the city. Obviously, this was not the only
monastery in the Western Empire; in this way, Turkic
culture took root, leaving its mark forever.
At first, the native Romans were frightened by the
monasteries: the monastic life was both alien and
incomprehensible to them. The Church did not
immediately take the monasteries into its bosom; this
happened only in the middle of the 5th century.
In 530 Benedict of Nursia founded the Benedictine
monastic order. Who was this man? No one knows for
certain. He at least lived among the Kipchaks - Italy's
new citizens - and the possibility that he himself was a
Kipchak cannot be excluded. At that time, they alone
knew the secrets of monasticism.
It is known that only the children of the "New
Romans" - the Turkis - were educated in the abbey of
Benedict of Nursia. They were then the aristocracy of
the Empire. It is also known that the monastery was
visited by Kipchak leaders (Khan Totila, for
example), who came to see Benedict himself.
The first abbeys in Western Europe could only have
been built by the Turkis. Behind them were the
traditions of the Altai and all of Central Asia. Holy
places. Hermits and prophets came there to pray,
philosophise and acquire knowledge. Archaeologists
have found the ruins of ancient Turkic monasteries.
Not just two or three, of course. In Kazakhstan, for
example, near the city of Aktube, there is the
forgotten monastery of Abat-Baitak. Such monuments
exist too in Chimkent, Semipalatinsk, and many other
places. The geography is extensive: the Altai, Central
Asia, the Urals, the Volga area - all this was Desht-i-
Kipchak. The monasteries on the holy lake of Issyk-
Kul were especially famous; the devout came here
from as far away as Catalonia. The geographical map
determined the route of the pilgrims, and it is well-
known.
Monks were usually hermits who lived apart from
other people, giving themselves up to prayer and to
learning The Truth. Among them also, however, were
the clergy - those who instructed the pilgrims arriving
at the monasteries, held services in the temple and
preached in far-flung settlements.
In Christianity, it is precisely the forms of Turkic
monasticism that have been perpetuated; there simply
are no others. It therefore emerges that Benedict of
Nursia, in founding his monastic order, was simply
copying forms that were already well-known - forms
from the Altai.
However, the Egyptian Pachomius the Great is
considered the founder of the first monastery to
follow the Turkic model. In 312, he was serving in the
army of the Emperor Constantine, of which Turkis
made up the backbone. The soldiers' language was,
therefore, Turkic. Getting to know the Turkis opened
up a great many things in life for Pachomius.
After his service was finished, he returned to Egypt
with his Turkic friends, and they formed a monastic
community. It grew in size to no fewer than 7,000
monks. Pachomius's dormitories lived according to
the strict rules of Altai monasteries. Even their dress
recalled the distant Altai: kolpaki (caps), bashlyki
(hoods) and epanchi (long mantles) made of
sheepskin.
The possibility that these monks also left behind the
ancient scrolls that archaeologists have found near the
Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi cannot be excluded.
How else can one explain the fact that Turkic words
were used in the texts and speech of the Egyptian
monks? Abata (abbot), altar, amen, artos (Easter
bread), Bog (God), bursa (seminary), Gospodi (Lord)
- literally dozens of words.
Only Turkologists know, for example, how to
translate the mysterious sarabaita found in the ancient
texts; and why, on the Coptic icons of those times, the
word apa can be found alongside the image of the
holy father, and how to understand it.
Today, few Turkis remember that in antiquity, apa
meant not just "elder sister" and "mother", but "father"
as well. The word had many shades of meaning,
including that of "father" in the sense of "priest".
Many questions remain, but there is only one answer:
the Egyptian clergymen knew a "sacred" language
that was incomprehensible to ordinary people.

The pedigrees of other Coptic clans also explain a

great deal. It turns out that the Copts called their
forbears ahmar, meaning "red-" or "fair-haired". The
legends of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia also tell of the
coming of fair-haired, blue-eyed strangers in the
distant past.
Who were these people, these ancient strangers who
left behind burial mounds and legends; who were
horsemen and died along with their horses?
They were neither Romans, nor Greeks, nor Persians,
nor Africans; the more so, as it would seem that no
one has ever referred to them, especially the latter, as
being fair-haired. One must conclude that, once again,
it is the question of the Kipchaks.
Since ancient times, a great many Turkic words have
been preserved in Arabic. Where did they come from?
It cannot be mere coincidence. In the Middle East, the
history of the early Dark Ages is closely tied to the
Great Migration of the Peoples. It is from this that the
very noticeable Turkic traces come.
Indicative of this is the fact that, like the rest of his
community, the monk Pachomius knew no Greek and
was not a Christian. They worshipped Tengri (the God
of Heaven) and shunned the Christian bishops. It was
only in 451 that the Greeks, having conquered Egypt,
took its monasteries into the bosom of the Greek
Church.
In those days, people in Europe spoke of the
monasteries as the Eastern exoticism - Eastern, not
Western. Outside of their exoticism, the Greeks and
Romans saw nothing in them. Once they became
Christian, the monasteries were a sorry spectacle.
They became desperately poor. No one there spoke of
spiritual quests any more.
The monastic community was slowly dying. Quietly,
like a caged bird.

This continued until Rome's Governor Gregory saw

the future of Italy and, indeed, the entire Roman
Church in the monasteries. He finally saw the light,
and the man who opened his eyes was Pope Pelagius
II.
Pope Pelagius II was a full-blooded Kipchak. As it
turned out, he was neither the first nor the last
Kipchak who had become head of the Catholic
Church. He was born into a noble family, and
governed the Church without the consent of
Constantinople. No one in Rome knew the strong and
weak points of the Turkis better than he.
Pope Pelagius was quite probably the Catholics' most
treasured gem, and the Turkis' most deadly poison. He
revealed to the Europeans the innermost secrets of the
Great Steppe. With him began the elevation of the
Roman Catholic Church and the extinguishing of
Desht-i-Kipchak. This was not, however, his dream.
Long talks between the Pope and Gregory bore
generous fruit. The Prefect of Rome - the No. 2 man
in the Empire - gave all his money to the monasteries,
then renounced secular life altogether, assuming the
Church rank of deacon. The Pope then sent him as a
papal nuncio or representative to Constantinople.
Things there could not possibly have gone better.
Once he had returned to Rome, Gregory entered a
monastery. For a long time, nothing more was heard
of him. Then, following the death of Pope Pelagius in
590, the clergy elected Gregory, the monk, to the
papacy. The Church had never seen anything like it!
The new pope, Gregory I the Great, was distinguished
by his efficient, businesslike manner. He began
managing Church affairs step by step. He first of all
brought order to his papal domains, something which
no one before him had ever done. He appointed
stewards, increased the amount of money coming in
from the land, and freed the Church from its
dependency on the state treasury. The money obtained
was not given by the new pope to the bishops, but was
spent on the needs of the Roman people, and on the
ransoming of prisoners of war. In this way, Gregory
won recognition for himself, and elevated the
authority of the Roman Church.
This was far from all that Pope Gregory did.
He gave most of his attention to the monasteries,
however, creating for himself a fulcrum with whose
help he figured on overturning and subjugating the
entire world to the church.

By this time, new nations had arisen in the lands of

the Western Empire, nations which were desperately
hostile to each other and to Italy. There had never
been calm here. These new states drew the attention
of the Pope as well. He understood that people tired of
war would listen to him and his monks. They had only
to find the right words.
The Pope sent his emissary to the King of Spain, and
conducted a dialogue himself with the warlike
Brunhild, the ruler of Austrasia (present-day France,
Switzerland, Germany and Austria). All of Western
Europe now came into his field of vision. In the centre
of it, he placed the Langobards.
Who were the Langobards? The inhabitants of
northern Italy. Kipchaks who had laid siege to Rome
more than once. A horde whose capital was Milan. A
great deal is known about them. They came to Europe
from the Altai, and were in no way distinguishable
from the warriors of Attila. They believed in Tengri.
Among the papers found to have by chance survived
in the archives of Europe, there are documents of the
Langobards, written by them in runes and cursive in
Turkic. Where have all the other traces of them (not to
mention the Langobards themselves) vanished? This
is a true mystery.
It ceases to be a mystery, however, when one studies
the deeds of Pope Gregory the Great and the rest of
the Roman Catholic Church.
In 592 having concluded a peace with the Langobards,
Pope Gregory declared the Roman Church to be a
Turkic church, and himself to be its abbot. This is a
forgotten episode in the history of Catholicism.
The Pope even learned Turkic (he didn't know Greek),
for which the Greeks dubbed him Duplicitus. A
cunning game began. Addressing the Romans, he
said: "The God of Heaven"; when he addressed the
Langobards, he said: "Tengri". The Pope acted as if he
had forgotten everything and knew nothing. Like an
innocent child, he began begging the Turkis to teach
him the secrets of the faith of Tengri.
Benedictine monks, the faithful servants of the Pope,
hurried to the Kipchaks. They easily got into the
Turkic temples - to the holiest of holies. Because Pope
Gregory tirelessly called himself "the Bishop not of
the Romans, but of the Langobards".
He also called himself "the servant of God's servants";
these were his very words.
He came to Milan as a wanderer, dressed in the cloak
of a slave. Among the Kipchaks, such cloaks were
called kapas, or chekrek kapas. Once he had bowed to
their temple, he said, in Turkic, "Here I am, the
servant of God's servants!". What would the ambitious
Kipchaks make of such a spectacle?
That they were "the servants of God", and that he was
their servant. Hardly anyone could resist such flattery;
it could certainly not pass unnoticed. The Kipchaks
believed this clever fox, and swallowed his bait.
Meanwhile, the Benedictine monks were
conscientiously earning their daily bread. The Pope
had known whom to select. Though of Turkic blood,
they were third- or fourth-generation citizens of Italy,
and Catholics. Catholic Turkis were enthusiastically
taken into the monasteries; and, in return for their
services, they were clothed and fed. The word order
was also knowingly chosen. Translated from Turkic,
the word means "gift from above"; or, "They say you
come from God". This was the origin of the monastic
orders - the faithful warriors of the Pope, the quiet
conquerors of Europe.
The Catholics who had settled in Kipchak cities didn't
burn the temples there, nor did they kill anyone. They
quickly became like kin to the Langobards.
The smile of submissiveness never left the faces of the
Benedictine monks. They sincerely thought that they
would bring peace to their lost sheep. Just one man,
Pope Gregory, knew that sooner or later, the
Kipchaks-Langobards would become accustomed to
Christ - meaning the Roman Church, as well - and,
once they had become accustomed, would forget their
own faith and cultural identity.
"God the Father and God the Son - one family", he
was fond of repeating. The more he used the name of
the Son, the more he forgot about the name of the
Father.
Christians, like "one family", worshipped alongside
the Langobards. Their places of worship were
virtually identical; their prayers and ceremonies,
almost the same. For example: until the 8th century, it
was forbidden for ordinary people to enter a Christian
church. They worshipped outside the church, next to
it. They had gotten everything from the Turkis - from
the kilisa, from the holy mountain of Uch-Sumer.
It is curious that the first Christian basilica in the West
appeared in 313, after the Kipchaks' victory over the
Roman army. There was no altar inside, but the
builders oriented it exactly towards the Altai. This
would become a rule of Christianity for all time. One
worships facing east, since Ex oriente lux: "Light
comes from the East".
The Catholics of these years copied many of the
Kipchaks' ceremonies. Let us consider just one, the
Church's Gregorian chant (named in honour of Pope
Gregory, who introduced it into Christian ritual).
Was this a Turkic tradition or not? There is no
question about it: the tradition was well-known even
in the ancient Altai. In the 1st century, the Khan Erke
(King Kanishka) acquainted his new allies with it.
They adopted it, along with the Turkic method of
writing music, the so-called kryuki ("little hooks", that
is, neumes - various symbols used in the notation of
the Gregorian chant). All of this has been preserved in
the history of Buddhism and in Buddhist
communities.
Sung prayers - akafisty (acathisti), irmosy (hirmoi),
kondaki (kontakia) - were the musical language of the
Turkic religion. We know this as well. The music is
impressive, especially the ancient prayer of Uch-
Sumer, where one can sense the soul of the Turkic
people.
It was to the sound of this chant that the Benedictine
monks conquered the Kipchaks with their bare hands.
They were vanquished without battle, without a fight.
Pope Gregory the Great wiped them out completely,
without a trace.
From that time on, the number of Catholics in Italy
rose sharply.

The Catholic Turkis

For over three centuries, a war for people's souls was

waged.
The Church spoke of peace, of loving one's
neighbour, of submissiveness. The most beautiful
words in the world flowed from its lips. The hostility
prevalent in Italy abated. The Kipchaks submitted
without even sensing how their lives were being
ruined; they had accepted Christ.
The hour finally came when the Langobards called the
Pope "The Greatest of God's Servants". There was
indeed a grain of truth in their words.
There were truly now fewer wars in Western Europe.
People saw this as one of the Church's achievements.
No one noticed that the free life had ended; it now
passed under the all-seeing eye of the Pope and his
overseers. The monks - the eyes and ears of the Pope -
now prowled around everywhere. Papal spies filled
the cities, and dozed not even at night. They saw and
knew about everything. The Church had achieved
absolute power over the peoples and nations of
Western Europe.
Thanks to Pope Gregory, it wasn't just the number of
Catholics that grew; their strength grew as well. All
kings and other monarchs were forced to reckon with
the Church. It had become a real power in its own
right: a state that had its own troops, gold and land,
but knew no boundaries.
Its power grew in many different ways.
For example: hardly had Pope Gregory concluded a
peace with the Langobards when he sent to their khan
as a bride a beauty named Theodelinda, the daughter
of a renowned Roman, and a Catholic. Suddenly, the
khan was surrounded by Catholics. He let them into
his home himself, although the adats (laws) forbade
Turkis to marry foreigners: according to them, one
could give one's daughter to a foreigner in marriage,
but one could not take a foreigner for a bride. Soon,
the Langobards found themselves under the authority
of the Church. They had been trapped, like flies in
honey; they had done it to themselves.
Having adopted Roman customs, they began laughing
at the "crude manners, the wild merry-making, the
gluttony and the repulsive appearance" of their
ancestors. It is so written in the documents they left
behind.
They turned away from drinking kumys (koumiss - a
beverage of fermented mare's milk) and stopped
eating horseflesh. They even changed their ancient
funeral ceremony: the Church forbade them to be
interred in burial mounds, together with their horses.
The Pope's agents had never spent time sitting on their
hands. They were always very active.
In Burgundy, the wife of the governor was converted
to Christianity, having been bought with generous
gifts. She soon brought her husband into the new
faith. The motive was really quite trivial.
Just before the Battle of Tolbiacum (now Zulprich,
Germany), the outcome of which was very doubtful
for the Burgundians, they appealed to Christ. They
emerged from the battle victorious. This was enough,
since the Turkis lived with the conviction that God
grants victory to those who have right on their side.
Thus, the Kipchaks from the Horde of Burgundians
recognised the Pope; it was Fate.
From this time on, the Burgundians began to be
transformed as well, to the point of changing their
diet: instead of horsemeat and koumiss, they had
already started eating snails and frogs. "The
frightened muses fled at the sounds of the wild
Burgundian lyre," wrote one contemporary. To put it
another way, the Burgundians began to forget the
Steppe and its burial mounds. They stopped playing
their musical instruments, the sounds of which now
irritated them.

This was, of course, no real tragedy. The Latin

Kipchaks simply could not help but become
Christians. It would have happened sooner or later.
The faith that reconciled the Europeans - old and new
- naturally took root in them. This was indeed
catholicism, in the sense of coming together.
The new faith was not foreign to them; everything in
it had come from Tengri. With each generation, it
become more and more their religion.
Of course, the Catholic Langobards continued to hold
the Romans in contempt. However, they did make
their peace with them. Their Code of Laws, which
they adopted in 643, is highly instructive. The text is
in Latin, but it says that they consider native Romans
to be their slaves. They were Kipchaks, and that
explains everything.
Strikingly, they adopted Roman law, but subordinated
it to the Turkic adats of the Steppe.
At first, the Turkis of Europe looked at themselves
and their history with trepidation. The Langobards,
having become citizens of Italy, emphasised their
superiority. This is extremely significant; it means
that their pride in themselves did not die immediately.
The Catholic Burgundians, however, cared nothing
for themselves. They cared only about their union
with the Pope, so that they could extend their power
over neighbouring nations in his name. The
Burgundians took the name of Franks in order to
distance themselves from the Turkic world, while
simultaneously getting closer to the Pope. They were
allowed to mint their own gold coins, which were
called shervans. Only the Turkis minted such coins.
This "new" people clearly had very old customs.
Kipchaks everywhere lived according to the rule
"Among frogs, become a frog yourself". It was in
their blood. They wouldn't enter "a different
monastery with their own rules". They would adopt
new ones. It was a tradition that is impossible to
explain. It's the way it was in India, in China, and in
Persia. They "became frogs" everywhere they went:
they assumed new names and literally dissolved
among other peoples. But they always remained
Turkis. Faded, colourless Turkis.
Of course, this did not mean that they completely
forgot their steppe traditions. No, they preserved
these. The Burgundians, for example, may have
"transformed" themselves into Franks, but they never
gave up their smithing; they bred their horses even
more diligently, and held races - true holidays! - with
a flourish. They also kept their right to fisticuffs - a
right of duelling, highly valued in the Great Steppe.
"Heaven forbid that a brave man should ever be
worthy of punishment, and a coward of rights," they
continued to say.
Those who had forgotten Tengri remembered his
justice.
Here is a line from a Dark Ages sage, one which
perhaps could not be said better: "A Turki is like a
bright pearl. Inside its shell, it's worth nothing. But
when it comes out of its shell, it becomes the jewel in
a king's crown."
Was it not this that led to the "disappearance" of the
Turkis in Europe? They became the jewels in other
people's crowns.

The Church diligently helped them in this. It played

on their weaknesses like on a finely-tuned instrument,
separating Kipchaks from other Kipchaks, and from
the legacy of their ancestors. It managed to do a great
deal, easily and without offending anyone.
In the 3rd century, the following was written about
this skill of the Romans: "They build altars to
unfamiliar deities in order to take over the sacred
places of other peoples and then possess their
kingdoms." It was exactly the same 500 years later.
The Church took a tried-and-true weapon from the
arsenals of Ancient Rome and won the day.
Its new weapon was an old, forgotten one, about
which the ingenuous Kipchaks knew nothing.
The greatest of minds then worked for the Roman
Catholic Church. There were Egyptians, Kipchaks and
the Romans themselves. They were all working on
one especially difficult thing: creating a new faith that
would gather all peoples into a single Christian
family.
For example: the famous Latin Bishop Dionysius
Exiguus (Denis the Little) was a Kipchak. He was a
great expert on the traditions of the Steppe and the
rituals of the faith of Tengri. At the beginning of the
6th century, he wrote The Apostolic Canons -
regulations according to which the Christian Church
lived, and continues to live to this day. Holidays,
prayers, the mysteries of faith: everything in it came
from the Turkis.
Father Dionysius translated Turkic books into Latin.
He was highly reputed as an accomplished
mathematician and astronomer: he composed the
calendar by which we live today, fifteen hundred
years later. Before this, time in Europe was measured
from the day Rome was founded.
Another Catholic Kipchak worked for the glory of the
new religion - the historian Jordanes. In 551 he wrote
the book now commonly referred to as the Getica, in
which he told of the Turkis' arrival in Europe.
Unfortunately, he also wrote much to please the
Church. He spoke out against his own people far too
much.
This was good all the same. His book showed the
morals of medieval Europe. From the
misrepresentations found in the book, it is obvious
how much the Europeans were trying to cover up the
traces of the Great Migration of the Peoples. They
clearly managed to, at least in some things.
But not in all.

The Anglo-Saxon Campaigns

Pope Gregory was indeed Great. However, even he,

"Christ's Representative on Earth", could not create a
new people. He didn't know how. Italy was neither
unified nor peaceful after Lombardy (Italian:
Lombardia) was annexed. The country would always
be divided between North and South. Different
peoples live there, although after so many centuries
they call themselves Italians and Catholics, and speak
a single language.
The Langobards were and remained Turkis. They
couldn't be made over. In 567, they launched a war
against Rome, a war that found support from
thousands of Europe's Kipchaks. Centuries of unrest
in Italy began here, in Lombardy. Their Turkic blood
has not cooled to the present day.
It follows that there was a blending of languages in
Italy - a blending of tongues, not of people. Religion
unified and reconciled them. But it could not change
the people. One simply cannot create a people. The
blood of one's ancestors doesn't die: it is passed on to
their descendants, in each and every one of their cells.
And, finally, in their souls.
Memory of the past can die among a people, but not
forever. It is awoken by the voice of blood. It turns
out that there really is such a thing; to this day, it will
not let Turkic Europe to be extinguished.
Back then, the Roman Catholic Church attracted not
just the Langobards, but the Kipchaks from the banks
of the Rhine as well. What evoked its interest? Not the
acquisition of new lands. On the Rhine, the Turkis had
found rich deposits of iron ore and had begun
smelting it. They called these lands Tering, which
translates as "something bountiful". It was this that
attracted the Church - iron. Without it, Western
Europe would have remained in the background of the
medieval world.
The Benedictine monks showed up there
unexpectedly, wishing to "unite what remained of the
Roman Empire with the youthful strength of the
Turkis, now victorious throughout the land".
Everything went precisely according to plan; by now,
they were experts.
Earlier, Celts had lived on the Rhine. They were not
an expressive people. This is how one Benedictine
monk brought news of their encounter with the
Kipchaks: the Celts "looked with surprise upon these
people who were superior to them in body and spirit".
They were surprised by the clothing of the Kipchaks,
their weapons, and especially their "firmness of
spirit".
Their surprise was understandable: the Celts
themselves wore kilts, had no knowledge of iron, and
had never seen a horse. Their lives were completely
different from those of the Turkis, but the same as the
rest of the native Europeans.
There were also Gauls living along the Rhine; they
were little different from Celts. However, the Romans
labelled the Gauls along the Rhine, as well as the
Celts and local Kipchaks living there, simply as
Germanic tribes, even though they were clearly
different peoples. In general, little was known about
nations during the Dark Ages.
The Byzantines, for example, referred to all non-
Byzantines as either Scythians or Celts. They meant,
of course, not the nation, but the population of one
country or another.
"Germanic tribes" generally meant the population of
non-Roman and non-Byzantine Europe. There were
two main kinds of peoples: forest and steppe. In
forested areas, the population lived in ways
completely different from those of the steppe. They
differed in their everyday lives, economies, languages,
religions and clothing. But most importantly, their
weapons were different. In chronicles, the "steppe
Germans" were called "Tungrys", "Tangrys" and
"Tengrys". What do these words tell us?
The Avars, Alemanni, Barsili, Bolgars, Burgundians,
Goths, Ostrogoths, Gepidae, Huns, Langobards,
Utiguri and Kurtiguri - history lists dozens of names
and dozens of "Germanic peoples". Here is a line from
a Byzantine letter of 572: "[They are] Huns, whom we
usually call 'Turkis'." Everything now falls into place.
This, of course, is not the only such line.
It seems that other "Germanic peoples" spoke Turkic,
and were not in any way different from one another.
Their language, customs and history were entirely the
same. They enjoyed smithing, fought on horseback,
drank koumiss and wore trousers; some wore blond
wigs. All these facts are well-known to historians and
archaeologists.
It is also well-known that in Saxony, the guardian
spirit was a dragon. Until the 12th century, this
emblem of the Ancient Altai decorated the banners of
the "Germans".
When historians speak of the wild "Germanic tribes",
they are frankly misguided. They don't know that the
Turkis earlier lived by a rule, according to which an
ulus (clan), upon coming to power, would give their
name to the horde. Sometimes, a horde assumed the
name of its Khan, or Leader. Sometimes, if there was
a reason to do so, they would think up a name for
themselves.
The Turkis are sharp-tongued and are true masters at
turning out apt sobriquets. The names "Gepidae" and
"Gepanta", for example, did not spring into being by
accident. There is a legend about this: it tells of how
the Goths were crossing the sea and some of their
fellow countrymen fell behind - their ship was the last
to make it to shore. "Gepid" means "lazy". There is
also an untranslatable Turkic play on words here: gepi
anta literally means "You'll dry out once you're there".
Chronicles record that "the Langobards and Avars
subsequently separated from the Gepidae".
It was quite another story with the Avars, one which is
well-known. In the 6th century, this clan fled to
Europe from the Altai, and the Great Khan sent an
army after them. They chased but couldn't catch them,
since they had hidden in the Caucasus. They then
moved on to Constantinople, and from there to the
Alps, to what is now Bavaria and its inhabitants are
called Bavarians.
Yet another example. The sons of one khan were
named Utigur and Kurtigur. After the death of their
father, the two sons went their separate ways. Their
hordes started to be called the Utiguri and the
Kurtiguri. One shaved the back of their heads; the
other, their entire heads. This was how the two
"Germanic peoples" differed from one another.
Some continued to wear their hair long, or left just
their forelocks, that is, oseledets in Turkic. The
"Germanic" Kipchaks lived the same life they lived in
the Great Steppe and built their cities the same way;
they didn't know how to build them otherwise.
Their cities live on to this day. One of them is the
famous Calais - Turkic for "fortress". It is not made of
stone but of wood, with an earthen rampart. The Strait
of Pas-de-Calais is named in its honour. The island
that it faces is called Albion in Roman chronicles, but
the Kipchaks gave it a new name: Inglend.
Why Inglend?
The prefix ing- in old Turkic words meant "booty".
Inglend - or "England" - literally meant "the land of
booty". It had been conquered during one of their
campaigns.

In the 5th and 6th centuries, the famous Anglo-Saxon

campaigns took place. It was then that two large
hordes made the crossing to the island. They were led
by Khan Cerdic and his son, Cynric (does the name
"Heinrich" - Henry, Henri, Enrique, Enrico - not come
from this?). Horsemen armed with pikes boarded their
ships, then disembarked onto the island. This event is
stamped indelibly in English history.
Legends about those times have been handed down.
A young Kipchak was walking along the bank of a
river, barely able to move his legs. Thick gold chains
hung on his exhausted body; on his wrists were
bracelets set with precious gems. The islanders asked
him, "What do you need all that treasure for?" "I'm
looking for a buyer," he replied. "I don't care what
price you pay." Then one of them said: "I'll give you
lots of river sand." The youth agreed. He gave this
man the gold in exchange for a bag full of river sand
and left. Everyone laughed after him, and
congratulated their fellow who had so easily duped
the foreigner.
The next day, the horsemen came. The villagers were
beside themselves. Then, the young man with his bag
full of sand stepped forward and began throwing
handfuls of sand along the riverbank. The islanders
instantly fell silent: they understood that it was now
his land, bought for the gold of the day before.
As was their tradition, the Turkis encamped, then built
a fortress, naming it simply Qand - the stone fortress.
No one ever disturbed them after that, since they had
acquired the land honestly.
Thus began the English pages of Turkic history.

The English Kipchaks

Much about the Anglo-Saxon campaigns has been

diligently forgotten.
For centuries tales have been spun about the bestiality
of the newcomers. Myths have arisen, one after the
other, to the point of absurdity. Today the uneducated
public understands the history of Great Britain better
than most scholars. There is too much there that has
been confused.
Britain's early history remains essentially unstudied;
the Church, which has itself fabricated the history of
England, forbade it. In the 8th century, a Benedictine
monk from Jarrow Monastery, Bede the Venerable,
wrote a book called "Ecclesiastical History of the
English People". With it began the lies that, like scum,
have covered the once-clear Thames for ever.
There is, however, another, genuinely brilliant work -
a work by the great English historian Edward Gibbon.
It consists of seven unsurpassed volumes, written in
the 18th century. Gibbon wrote of Dark Ages Europe
like no one else. He told in detail a bit more than the
Church would let him. This "bit more" sufficed
thoroughly to earn a rebuke from the Pope and his
underlings:
The past of Great Britain is so well known to the least
educated of my readers and is so obscure for the most
scholarly of them, Gibbons noted sadly.
Actually, there was no conquest of England; the
Britons themselves invited the "most wise Saxons" (as
they called the Kipchaks) to their island. They
themselves set aside fertile lands for the Saxons, so
that they might teach them how to cultivate them.
They adopted their unusual breeds of livestock. They
recognized Tengri and His cross. None of this was
forced on them.
For centuries the Turkic spirit has been diligently
cleansed from English history. The "roving Huns" that
came to the shores of Foggy Albion and became the
beloved heroes of the old English ballads, had already
been forgotten.
It was as though there had never been a preacher in
England named Aidan, who revealed to the Britons
the faith of the God of Heaven. The pastor roamed
through the English countryside with an interpreter;
therefore, he could not have been a native Briton.
Earlier, in 432, it was from his hands that the most
revered of Ireland's saints - St. Patrick - received the
cross.
It should be noted that in these years there was no
Latin cross. It was thought up a century later. At this
time, the Christians used the Turkic equilateral cross.
Such crosses can still be seen on the monuments of
Old England; they are the only ones that
archaeologists find.
This is a very important historical detail.
English people now pronounce the name Aidan
("Bright", in Turkic) a bit differently - "Eden". Let
them. However, to their honour, they have never tried
to distort the preacher's feat. They have left it
unchanged - though, it is true, without many details.
Forgotten too are the ancient burial mounds that
remain in southern England from the time of Attila,
although they haven't disappeared entirely and can
still be seen. They are exactly the same as the burial
mounds of the Altai - or the Great Steppe. In the town
of Sutton-Hoo, in the county of Suffolk, there is even
a royal burial mound, the biggest of the 15 mounds
known here.
Found there are weapons and gold ornaments.
Filigree, genuine works of art. The ornaments are
purely Turkic. Especially beautiful are the figurines of
deer. They are exact reproductions of Altai deer. It is
as though they had been brought from there. And this
was in England, the country upon which, as the
history books assert, "wild barbarians" descended in
the 5th century.
Incidentally, the word "London" is of Turkic origin. In
the 5th century, it was already telling barefoot British
boys that a great many snakes could be found down
along the river. "London" stems from the Chinese
word lung ("dragon", "snake") plus don.
It is better not to discuss here the language of ancient
Britain at all. Otherwise, we might ruin the future
holiday of the Turkological linguists who will,
perhaps, choose to study this mystery. Most probably,
the striking similarity of Turkic and ancient British
words will attract their attention. There are many such
examples. Here are some of the first to have been
found: "young" (yang); "at once" (tap); "tack" (tak);
"soul" (sulde); Eden (Aidan). Very close in meaning
and spelling are the ancient Turkic and British words
for "mode" (ton); "to cut" and "notch" (kert and kerf);
and "to thunder" (tang tung et-tang). Even the famous
Tower of London was connected with the hill upon
which it stood, the tau ("hill" or "mountain").
Could the language of ancient Britain have been a
dialect of Turkic? "That is the question!"
The Anglo-Saxons adopted Latin under pressure from
the Church, as their books demonstrate. For example,
"The Laws of Ethelbert", the earliest book in Anglo-
Saxon, was hand-copied only at the turn of the 6th and
7th centuries in the city of Kent. In it, the laws of the
Langobards and other Kipchaks are duplicated, since
the new Englishmen lived by them as well. The text is
written in runes, as in other old English books. "The
Laws of Ethelbert" then mysteriously disappeared.
Why? The reason for this is also clear.
The books of old England were burned by the Church
during the Inquisition. There remain copies, however,
which from time to time are found under the most
unexpected of circumstances. Such finds are
invaluable.
By all indicators, the old English literature was very
expressive. We know that in the poetic "Bestiary"
there are three guardian spirits: the snow leopard, the
whale and the partridge. Where did the Anglo-Saxons
learn of the snow leopard, which is found only in the
Altai? Where did they learn of the Altai customs of
indulging spirits?
Other "Anglo-Saxon" traditions are entirely Turkic.
Especially their beloved clap on the shoulder, without
which a Turki is not a Turki.
Do the forgetful English know that their traditional
game of polo (played on horseback with mallets) was
also born in the Altai long before the Great Migration
of the Peoples? Only there they played it not with a
wooden ball, but with the head of an enemy sealed in
a leather bag. It was the ceremonial game of Victory.
No, the blood of the Kipchaks did not grow cold in
the chilly veins of the Anglo-Saxons. It is just belied
by the appearance and behaviour of these people.
They're fully capable of getting hot under the collar,
and they know how to box - or how to just fight.
They even continue to drink tea with milk, like
shepherds in their tents, since this is the only way
their ancestors drank tea. They love horses and horse
racing, because no Kipchak could live without them.
In the forests of their beloved England, they hunt
foxes and deer just as the Turkis hunted - on
horseback, since they neither knew how nor wanted to
do it differently. Englishmen are also experts at
falconry. Where did the inhabitants of Albion, on the
edge of the Roman Empire, get all these things?
They are an interesting people: they guard their
traditions without understanding that these are
remnants of their earlier culture - a culture that has
been forgotten. Or, more exactly, one they were
ordered to forget.
For example, they hung on to their old monetary
symbols and coins to the very last. Their "confusing"
money, which often evoked derision, was also an echo
of the steppe era.
Thus, the English word "shilling" came from the
Turkic "sheleg", or "non-ambulatory coin", which is
also made up of twelve smaller, "ambulatory" coins.
"Penny" came from "peneg", or "small coin". And, of
course, the word "sterling" itself comes from a
monetary weight unit of the Turkis, the "sytyr". A
"sytyrling" was also equal to twelve "shelegs". All
this was exactly the same for the English.
The similarity of the Turkic word "manat" and the
English word "money" only reinforces this
observation, since they both mean exactly the same
thing.
For centuries now a bag of sheep's wool has been kept
in the English Parliament. The very same was a
symbol of authority for the Kipchaks: out in the Great
Steppe, this is what those elected as judges sat on…
And those who wear frock coats don't know that they
come from the Altai.
Meanwhile, the neighbours of the English - the Scots,
who wear kilts and love to play the bagpipes - have a
completely different way of life and cannot stand
anything "Turkic". These things are, therefore, alien to
them. Neither did the other nation of Great Britain, the
Welsh, whom the English themselves referred to as
foreigners, adopt anything Turkic. They have a
completely different way of making merry - one that
is too boring for a true Turki.
The English Kipchaks now parade about importantly
and self-confidently, like peacocks. They've forgotten
what their ancestors from the Altai taught them:
"Don't wear other people's pants; you won't be able to
cover yourself with them". This is true folk wisdom.

With Christ, the Benedictine monks dressed the

Anglo-Saxons in other people's pants, but they
couldn't cover them up entirely. They didn't make a
new people.
The monks' leader, Augustine, became the first
Anglo-Saxon bishop in 597. The power of the Church
was confirmed in England from the hand of the Pope.
It soon became known as first among the Catholic
lands. By the fourth or fifth generation, it would look
upon its "wild" forebears with revulsion. Everything
happened exactly as it had with the Langobards and
Burgundians.

The monks disembarked on the island of Tan, along

the Kentish coast. They went to the King, knowing
that his wife had secretly become a Catholic before
their marriage and had offered shelter to monks. Soon,
Ethelbert, not yet a king but still not a khan, adopted
Catholicism, and subsequently so did his subjects.
From this time forward, they carried out the will of
the Pope, "Christ's Representative on Earth". True, out
of stubbornness, other Anglo-Saxons kept two altars
in their churches: one for Tengri, and one for Christ.
This, however, solved nothing; the people's soul had
been sold.
The argument over whose altar was better went on for
a very long time; it was not settled until 663. The
Romans once again contrived to promise faithful
Anglo-Saxons the Key to Heaven, if they would keep
but one altar in their churches. This was done, and
England became Christian.
Their dual faith was kept all the same: the norm is
embodied to this day in the Anglican Church, while
the Catholic Church remains a dark shadow of
England's past.
Its stamp is indelible.

Islam

The highest award among Catholics is the Order of St.

Gregory. It is a copy of the medals of the Ancient
Altai, the cross of Tengri. Symbolic? Of course. Just
as it is symbolic that, while preserving the old Altai
traditions, the Greco-Roman Church wiped out all
memory of their origins. They did this not just in
England, but everywhere.
They did this because the old faith would have
interfered with their rule over the people.
Both the Roman Pope and the Byzantine Patriarch did
everything they could to achieve their ends. They
dragged the Turkic spiritual traditions through the
mud, while dreaming up their own, pagan traditions.
For example, things that had belonged to Christ
suddenly appeared in the churches from out of
nowhere, along with the physical remains of his
disciples. People began praying to these things. Such
"religion" is in no way different from paganism.
There was hardly any church that did not have its own
relics.
For a time this was carried to absurdity. Dozens of
heads of John the Baptist were being kept in churches.
One winemaker, having learned that the wine in his
cellars had gone sour, collected a drop from each jug
in a container and put it near the remains of St.
Stephen. The next day, the flavour had been restored
to the wine. Thus was born the "miracle" of St.
Stephen.
Pagans in the guise of Christian priests were the
masters everywhere.
The faith that was born in the Caucasus in the 4th
century was forgotten and faded into the background,
like everything else Turkic. It was being altered. On
orders from the Church, Europeans called themselves
"Christians", but they had little in common.
Differences remained. Dark Ages Europe seethed like
a volcano. All that was Turkic, Roman, Greek and
Celtic merged and melted, only to come pouring out
and cool like obsidian - glassy and brittle.
It would cool for centuries.

It was completely different in the Near East. The

church there also searched for itself, its face and its
power. Not in paganism, however, but in philosophy -
in seeking the meaning of life. The image of Tengri
glowed on the horizon; it was not overshadowed by
idols.
Any quest, as is well known, sooner or later bears
fruit. The fruit of the free thought of the Near East
was a phenomenon that would go down in human
history as the short and powerful word Islam -
teachings handed down by the Almighty.
They first learned of this in Arabia, at the same time
that Pope Gregory the Great was carrying out his
desperate attack on the Langobards. In 609 divine
revelations were made to the Arab Muhammad. They
were then recognized as new teachings from God,
while Muhammad himself was recognized as God's
Prophet.
Unfortunately, not much is known about the Prophet.
Almost nothing reliable has been preserved. His life
has become legend, made up of words and images. It
is not in the power of science to either confirm or
disprove these. This means that all might well have
been just as Moslems say:
Muhammad was illiterate. In his youth, he travelled
with caravans across the desert, then managed the
business affairs of a widow, whom he later married.
One day, he was surprised to hear distant voices.
For three years he had these revelations and told
others about them. However, no one in the city of
Mecca would hear him out: people could see no sense
in the new religion. To them, its prayers proved to be
unbearable, while tithing one-tenth of one's income
was an outrageous injustice. Paganism suited the city's
people just fine.
Alas, a new religion doesn't automatically appear in
the wake of divine revelations. Society itself
determines whether or not a religion survives, and
what kind of religion it must be.
Muhammad was recognized only by his closest
family, and they formed a community by themselves.
It grew slowly. Ten years later it had barely 100
Moslems.
Today, tens of millions of people - entire countries -
follow Islam. Interest in it is immense. Everyone
notes the mystery of its birth: Did, could, illiterate
camel drivers come up with, out of thin air, Teachings
that have no equal in the philosophical world?
There clearly is a mystery here, one to which only the
Koran can provide the answer.
The Koran is the priceless treasure of Islam, the Book
containing the Revelations and Teachings of the
Prophet. It is the Supreme Law of the Moslem. Its
completed text appeared only at the turn of the 7th
and 8th centuries, almost fifty years after the death of
Muhammad himself. Like Islam, it took time to
mature; after all, such teachings do not congeal
overnight. This is how the world ruled by Time and
the Spirit operates.
Hundreds of books have been written on the history of
Islam, but nothing is entirely clear. The theologians of
different countries view early Islam differently. They
argue about Truth and the Teachings, and adduce
arguments that contradict one another. But a religion
cannot have two histories.
As a rule, there is only one history for everything.

"Bismi-llyakhi-r-rakhmani-r-rakhim!" - "In the name

of Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate!" One's
thoughts proceed from the Almighty; as it was, it is
now and forever shall be.
In this book no one expresses doubts, but a Moslem
must believe the Koran, not people, no matter what
clothing they wear. The "Arab version" of Islam now
known (like the "Greek version" of Christianity) looks
a great deal like myth - a big myth that took shape
only by the 19th century. This is what History shows,
and History cannot be changed.
Moslems had apparently already forgotten that Islam,
in Dark Ages Europe, was called the "Egyptian
heresy". This was no accident: It was practically the
same as the teachings of the Egyptian and Abyssinian
churches. Egypt, then a colony of Byzantium, saw in
Islam a path to freedom, since "Whoever has God, has
power".
It was the spiritual traditions of Egypt and Ethiopia,
not Arabia, that became the soil of Islam.
The new faith first took root among the Christians -
people who had already recognized the God of
Heaven. The Near East no longer wanted to be the
slave of Byzantium. It needed Islam. It did not betray
Christianity - the religion of its fathers - but freed the
faith from the power of the Greeks. It preserved the
pure image of the God of Heaven, and with it drew
the people of Byzantium's colonies.
It is positively striking that the image of the God of
Heaven in "Egyptian" Christianity and in Islam were
entirely the same. It could not have been otherwise.
Religion is part of a people's culture and morality; it
does not arise in a wilderness, and it does not join a
people as one with just words - not even if they're the
truest words in the world. It is not enough to hear
divine revelations; one must understand them and take
them to other people.
Islam is the East's great creation. Its origin is Tengri,
for people first raised their eyes to Heaven two and a
half thousand years ago - to the Eternal Blue Heaven.
Islam helped Egypt and the entire Near East to obtain
their freedom. The influence of the Turkis there was
enormous. The fact that they ceased to remember this
in the 19th century does not mean that the Turkis were
not there. They were!
Let us recall one of their ways of addressing Tengri:
"Alla" (from al, or "hand") - O Giver and Taker. Only
the Turks held their palms before them and, looking at
the Altai sky, said Alla a thousand years before the
Moslems. This is how it came to be in Islam.
The Altai knew 99 ways of addressing Tengri. In
Islam too, there are 99 ways of addressing Allah.
They are the same.
"Allah-il-Allah!" say the Moslems when beginning a
prayer. "O God (Allah)! Come down to us, O Lord (il-
Allah)!" This is a pure Turkic phrase, common for a
Turkic Moslem even today. He rarely says "Allah"
with the aspiration used by Arabs when pronouncing
the word; most often, he says "Tengri" when
addressing the Almighty. Old people remember the
words of their grandfathers.
Islam teaches that Allah is the Almighty. Like Tengri.
Allah created flora, fauna and man. Like Tengri.
They pray to Allah while prostrating themselves. Like
to Tengri. How are they different? Monotheism is the
central concept of Islam. But it was the Turks who
brought monotheism to the Western world: God the
Great Spirit, the Creator of the World and All That Is
in It. There are no gods other than He.
Islam kept the angels and demons who inhabit the
realm between God and Man. The people of the Altai
had always known them. There even remains the
Fallen Angel, the lord of evil spirits - Iblis.
Nothing has been forgotten, nothing has disappeared
from the ancient faith of the Turkic people.
"There is no God but Allah," say the Moslems.
This is exactly what the people of the Altai said, word
for word: "There is no God but God." What, then,
really distinguished early Islam from the Turkic faith?
Almost nothing. Only the ritual, which the Moslems
did not have in the 8th century, and which they had to
find. It took centuries for the ritual to be established.

The Koran

The Koran is, of course, the main achievement of

Islam. A holy book, it contains the answers to all of
life's questions, even to the most difficult. How did it
come into being?
This is an extremely important question, since there
were no books on the Arabian Peninsula at all - its
people did not know writing. There were sacred books
among the ancient Turkis; the peoples of the East
were learning from them as early as the 1st century,
during the reign of the Khan Erke, and Europe would
follow. They then simply vanished. Where? Did they
really disappear?
The answer can be plainly seen in Surah 108 of the
Koran: "We gave Gheser to you as a gift, so pray ye to
The Lord…" it begins. The meaning of this verse is
deep and difficult to fathom.
The Arabs did not know then (do not know now) who
"Gheser" was, which is most striking! This
"incomprehensible word" has always evoked
disagreement and arguments among the translators of
the Koran. They even pronounce it differently -
Kewser, Kawsar. They also give different
interpretations of it - "abundance", "comfortable
circumstances".
Could the name of the Prophet of the Turkic people
been inserted into the text of the Koran if it hadn't
been known already? Such things simply do not
happen, because they are impossible. Something is
obviously wrong here: one cannot write a book if one
does not know the alphabet, and one cannot solve a
mathematical problem if one does not know the
numbers. This means that the word "Gheser" in the
Koran is connected with some very important event -
one that is now either forgotten or has been
deliberately ignored.
There are other blank spots in the text of the Koran.
They, too, will reveal their true meaning only when
the history of the Turkic people assumes its rightful
place in the history of mankind. One cannot
permanently "forget" about a people that gave the
world its faith in the God of Heaven.
The truth will triumph sooner or later, no matter what.

Scholars have long given their attention not merely to

the "incomprehensible" words of the Koran, but to the
uniquely written text itself. The Arabs did not write
this way. They had other ways of structuring phrases.
Science has concluded that the Koran is clearly not
"Arab speech".
The ancient wisdom tells us the same thing: "One
cannot hide a camel among sheep". This is completely
true.

In the Koran, for example, there are lines that coincide

with texts of the Talmud and the Bible. Is this
surprising? No; the Koran is a collection of divine
revelations. It is a work that was inspired by the words
of the Prophet Muhammad.
It took decades to compose the Koran and to polish its
verses. Dozens of books were then being translated
into Arabic: Turkic, Egyptian, Syrian, Persian,
Hebrew - books of all kinds. In them they sought the
grains of wisdom.
These translations have been dubbed "Arab
literature", but they remain translations. They were
music to the Moslems' ears, since they represented the
new culture of a new East, free from Byzantine
despotism.
One translation was titled "Gheser-efsane" ("Hasar-
afsana"), which contained Turkic fairy tales and
legends. At the end of the 8th century it acquired a
new name: "A Thousand and One Nights". Can one
then conclude that Sheherezade told her stories in
Turkic?
Sinbad the Sailor, as also becomes clear, spoke
Turkic, too, since he knew no other language…. The
science of History is surprising, indeed. It not only
uncovers great secrets, it also proves that Koran is "a
collection of wisdom, written in the language of
revelations", and a repository of "lost" treasures.
This book was not created by human hands!
Its parables and brilliant verses were the fruits of high
literature - fruits that had taken centuries to ripen.
Like the ornaments from a steppe burial mound, they
could be neither imitated nor excelled. There had
never been anything like them before in the Near East
- only among the Turkis.

The Koran is made up of verses (aiats) that, like

sparkling gems, fill its books (surahs) with light and
wisdom. Aiat is a Turkic word: ai is the imperative of
"to explain", while at means "name" or "title". It is a
phrase (or fragment of a phrase) that is read aloud in a
singsong voice.
The Turkis, as is well-known, read out their prayers
only in such a voice. This was the tradition of the
Ancient Altai.
The Koran's text itself started to be written down in
633; it took decades to complete. Hundreds of holy
pages were written; to this day not a word, not one
comma, has been changed. From whose words,
however, was the Koran composed? This is unknown.
It is known that after the death of Muhammad Arabia
reverted to paganism. The Arabs were the first to
forget their own Prophet.
Even while he was alive, they did not know him well.
It was a memorable event indeed when, in 637, the
Caliph Omar, following his victory over the Persians,
asked his best warriors to recite just one verse of the
Prophet Muhammad. No one could. Only one was
able to whisper the prayer "Basmala".
This is all that those who would spread Islam knew of
it.

It is believed that the first lines of the Koran began to

be written down from the words of an old man, the
Arab Zeid-ibn-Tabit (or Zaid-ibn-Sabit), who had
survived the Battle of Yemam. This may be true. He
was then only 22. In 651, now an old man, he finished
his work. It was not, however, the Koran.
It is also said that secretaries, who knew how to write,
were always to be found alongside the Prophet. This
is, however, highly improbable; where could they
have come from in an illiterate land? Even if it were
true, what was Zeid-ibn-Tabit doing for two decades?
Everything had already been written down before
him…. This means that what happened was
completely different.
The text of the Koran took shape closer to the 8th
century. This is a historically verifiable fact.
Everything else is conjecture which, over the
centuries, has been transformed into immutable truth.
A great deal is not understood here. In what script
could the Koran have been written? This is also a very
important question. Without an answer to it,
something remains as inexplicable - fictitious - as
before.
The so-called Arabic script was, in the early Dark
Ages, a "divine, secret text" - the writing of the
Turkis. They called it by a name which sounded very
like "cipher", or "secret code". This way of writing
was also known among Christians, but only to a select
few - the Copts. It was unknown to the Arabs. This is
why the role of the "Coptic scribe" is reflected in the
Moslems' well-known proverbs, Hadith. This was far
from accidental.
Could Zaid-ibn-Tabit, a simple man from Medina,
have known about the secret text of the Turkis?
Certainly not. What about the Prophet's secretaries?
Yes, but only under one condition: if they were
bishops from the Near Eastern Church.
They were indeed.
In 615 Muhammad, as is well known, sent his people
to the Abyssinian Church. The Prophet bade
Christians to come to him, calling them his
coreligionists. He asked the Copts to "help true
believers find piety", and to "take onto their shoulders
other concerns of the Moslems". These "concerns"
were connected with their system of writing.
This can be confirmed not just from Hadith, but from
their way of writing itself.
Scholars have established that Arabic script assumed
its present form only in the 8th-9th centuries, when
the Koran had already been written. The "divine text"
was then abolished, so that it would be forgotten. The
new Arabic script was made accessible to the ordinary
person and ceased to be a cipher.

However, a new question then arises: Were the pages

of the very first Koran - the ones penned by Zeid-ibn-
Tabit, which then mysteriously disappeared - not
written in Turkic? Was it not these that were
forbidden and burned when Caliph Omar ordered that
only the Korans written in Arabic should be used?
This is why there are no copies written down during
his lifetime of the words of the Prophet Muhammad.
They, like the text of the first Koran itself, could have
been written only in the "divine" Turkic script. They
could not have been any different.
These forbidden texts survived for several centuries,
as the Moslem Turks handed them down from
generation to generation, like relics…. It is possible
that some still exist.

The Moslems have another holy book, the Sunna. It

supplements the Koran and records the deeds and
pronouncements of the Prophet. This book was
completed by the 9th century. With it ended Islam's
era of "Egyptian Christianity", and the former's true
independence began.
The teachings of Muhammad had become a full-
fledged religion.
Not all Moslems agree with the text of the Sunna.
Those who accept it unreservedly are called Sunnites;
they are in the majority. However, this means
absolutely nothing: in the Islamic world, Shiites are
no less respected and authoritative.
The authors of the Sunna were two great Turkis, al-
Bukhari and Muslim. They most certainly did not live
in Arabia. For its depth of thought, al-Bukhari's work
was called Sakhikh ("The True Tome"). After the
Koran, there is no book more authoritative; such is the
opinion of well-known Eastern scholars.
Virtually all the greatest Moslem scholars came,
incidentally, from the Turkic world. No one knew the
teachings of Muhammad better than they. This is a
recognized fact.
With their books these people raised eternal
monuments to themselves and to their people.
The Arabians had never had people of such high
knowledge. Among them there were not even proper
clothes for the adherents of the new religion: their
robes were good only for riding on camels. The
Turkis gave them the clothing of a Moslem.
Turbans, fur hats and fezes; baggy pants and shirts
open at the neck; short black jackets (kapi) and
caftans: they arrived just in time. Of course, the
climate in the Near East is different from that of the
Altai; they, therefore, made the clothes lighter. Their
cut, however, remained the same as before - virtually
identical, in fact.
Everyone could recognize a Moslem by his new
clothes. Officials were distinguished by their long
shirts with open collars, slit down the chest, while
clergymen wore cloaks and tailasans (from the Turkic
talu san - "special honour"). All Moslems, men and
women, stood out in their baggy pants, which were
especially highly valued.
Turkic dress was firmly established in the Near East
from that time on. For example, the Caliph al-
Muktadir went to his death clothed in a caftan. These
pages of Islamic history are distant, but not forgotten.
No one knows them any more because by the 19th
century the world had changed to the Turkis'
disadvantage. They were hated by everyone, including
themselves: the Ottoman Empire, the last bastion of
the Turkic world, fell.
Earlier, however, in the 9th century, Moslems
remembered well the words of the Almighty and were
not embarrassed to repeat them: "I have an army that I
named the Turkis and placed them in the East; when I
am angered by a people, I give my army power over
that nation." Nice words.
A great scholar of the Islamic world, Mahmud of
Kashgar quoted them in his books. They contain the
entire history of the Great Migration of the Peoples.
They also tell of the apocalypse with which the
destruction of the Roman Empire began.
Here, too, is Attila, who was called the Scourge of
God; here, too, is Islam, which the Pope looked upon
as "God's retribution".
Who knows whether these memorable words contain
not just the past of the Turkic world, but its future as
well?

The Signs of Islam

Earlier, there were seven ways of reading the Koran,
and each one was correct. This means that seven
peoples (or, more likely, seven cultures) created Islam
and its traditions.
One of them brought to the religion the ritual of
circumcision; another, the prohibition against pork;
still others gave it its books, morality, architecture,
clothing and ceremonies. The contributions of
different peoples to Islam were varied, while the
Arabians were far removed from it.
What could pagans whose ablutions were even
performed with sand have contributed?
Once a year, in the spring, their tribes convened in
Mecca by the Black Stone. There the tribal leaders set
up their idols and prayed to them. With these prayers,
the New Year began. Of course, the Arabians knew
about the religious beliefs of the Jews; they were also
familiar with the fire-worshipping Persians and with
the Christians as well. They did not, however, adopt
their faith; an alien fire could not warm their souls.
A people receive a new religion when they see its
might. It has always been this way. The Armenians,
Greeks and Romans believed in the God of Heaven
only when they had seen his power.
Nevertheless, the Arabian Desert did play a role of its
own. The philosophers of the Near East selected it as
a corner of the world inaccessible to the Greeks. It
was there that they planted the saplings of the new
faith. The adherents of Islam were labelled Moslems,
or "those who have given themselves to God". People
from various Byzantine colonies together sampled the
air of freedom, but they had no common language and
no shared culture.
This is why clothing, especially at first, played such
an important role for Moslems: it was only their attire
that distinguished them from others. In adopting
Turkic fashions, they began to resemble those who
had helped them find the God of Heaven, and with
Him, their longed-for freedom.
This is the way it was.

With Islam, the first nation of free Moslems had

appeared by the beginning of the 7th century - the
Caliphate, which was not ruled over by the Greeks.
This was also a sign of freedom. Its borders soon
seemed endless and stretched far from Mecca - to the
remote edges of the lands of Central Asia, the Seven
Rivers, Mesopotamia, the Near East and North Africa.
The ideas of Islam also took root in part of Italy, and
in Spain and Southern France, where the Kipchaks
lived. In them, people saw hope for distancing
themselves from the growing power of the Church,
and willingly let the winds of change into their homes
and cities.
Emissaries of the Prophet Muhammad visited the
kaganates of Desht-i-Kipchak, Khazariya, and the
Volga Bulgars (Bulgaria).
The new faith was adopted peacefully everywhere,
since it united people against the hated Byzantines.
The city-dwellers of Egypt and Syria, for example,
met the Prophet's emissaries ecstatically, with music
and song. As though they were heroes.
Even the Popes were forced to enter into secret
correspondence with the Moslems in the hope that
they would lend him assistance and their support.
They would indeed end up supporting him; they were
close allies until the 11th century. Once, they even
saved the Pope from certain death.
Much has been written about the Caliphate. However,
politics has always interfered with telling the truth,
sometimes forcing one to overlook that which is most
important. For example: Who were they, these
fearless warriors of Islam? Why did they fight on
horseback, with sabres and pikes?
From where in the Near East, in the colonies of
Byzantium, did this cavalry - and the crushing
victories it won - suddenly appear?

The answer lies in the word "Arabs". This is what

Moslems were called in the Dark Ages, and all of
them were included in this one word. It made no
difference whether one was talking about the peoples
of Arabia, Egypt or Syria.
So, a Moslem was an Arab. Dozens of different
peoples became "Arabs" at a single stroke, including
the Near Eastern Turks - the warriors of Islam. It was
they who had raised the blue banner of the new
religion to the light of the Eternal Blue Heavens, and
they now began to illuminate the domes of mosques -
the Moslems' temples.
The new religion of the East stood on ancient Turkic
foundations. Its symbol, naturally, was the sign of
Tengri - the cross (adji).
True, in 1376 the Arabs (Turkis of the Mamluk
Dynasty) substituted a green banner for the blue.
However, they were able to retain the symbol of the
faith by disguising it under an eight-pointed star. With
this, the warriors of the Caliphate went into battle and
won victory after victory.
Only they, however, were privy to the secret - no one
else.
In the Caliphate they viewed the equilateral cross
differently at different times. For example, in the 7th
century, the Governor Muawiyah decided to mint
special "Moslem" coins from silver and gold, but the
people rejected them. "There's no cross on the coins,"
they said.
In the Caliphate the cross was found not just on coins.
It - the sign of Heaven - distinguished the Moslems'
banners from all others. Until 1024 Islam permitted
the day of the Holy Cross to be celebrated. The
celebrations were opened by the Caliph himself. It
was a major national holiday.
The Dark Ages battle between Moslems and
Christians for the sign of the cross was waged
especially cruelly. Moslems forced their way into
churches and knocked the crosses off the walls, then
erased all traces of them. The Christians responded in
kind. Everyone wanted to be closer to the God of
Heaven.
In the 8th century the Europeans began to quietly
yield in the battle; they even decided to turn away
from the cross of Tengri, having come up with Greek
and Latin crosses. They had virtually no choice in the
matter, however. Only the Armenians, who had
changed little over the centuries, kept the cross of
Tengri.
The East and West battled desperately for ownership
of the cross. Their struggle was distinguished by its
surprising passion, since there were Kipchaks living
in both places. It was, however, no longer their sign,
and with all their might they wanted to get it back.
Thus began the Crusades.
True, later on, little would be remembered about these
campaigns or about the history of the cross, and then
only rarely. It was believed that this knowledge had
been forgotten.
Islam was also distinguished by its new architecture.
It is Time, sleeping in stone, over which the centuries
have no power.
No traces of the first mosques have been preserved,
for there never were any. It was on a muddy square,
surrounded by a stone wall that Moslems first prayed
with the Prophet. There then appeared buildings of
Egyptian architecture, but these were too simple and
inexpressive - "They're something like a barn or a
stable," it was said at the time.
The Moslems then turned to the Turkic traditions.
In Jerusalem in 691, the Kipchaks built the first of
their new mosques, the Kubbat as-Sakhra, now known
as the Mosque of the Rock. It is simply magnificent -
a huge domed temple that resembles a giant yurt. The
mosque's elegant octagonal foundations, laid in brick,
have never failed to thoroughly delight those who
visit it.
When an identical mosque was erected in Medina, the
citizens cried out in astonishment: "It's a kilisa!" - that
is, a Turkic temple.
Thus began Moslem architecture - or, more precisely,
it began much earlier, back in the Altai. It came with
the Kipchaks across the Great Steppe and spread
throughout Europe.
In Azerbaijan, for example, in the village of Lekit,
there is a unique Turkic temple of the 5th century, a
true architectural Mecca. Almost 100 years after its
construction (in 527, to be precise), the Kipchaks
copied it exactly with the Church of Sergius and
Vakkh in Constantinople. Then, in 547, the Cathedral
of St. Vitius was built following its design in
Ravennia, the capital of the Italian Turks.
Except for its dimensions and special atmosphere, the
Mosque of Kubbat as-Sakhra is virtually identical to
these. Its dome, which recalls a yurt, and its
foundations, which duplicate those of the aila, were
for the Kipchaks images of the Altai - images of
home. It contained all the warmth of their native land
and all the majesty of Heaven.

At the dawn of Islam, the Near East learned too of

mazars (mausoleums), where distinguished people
were interred. It was said that prayers read here
reached Allah more quickly. Crowds thronged to the
new shrines.
A mausoleum is a steppe burial mound, only made out
of stone.
One other ancient Turkic custom became part of the
East: Memorials (turbs) began to be erected on the
graves of prominent Moslems - monuments like the
stone figures of the Ancient Altai, only simpler.
The dead were mourned according to Turkic customs,
because this is what ritual demanded.

The world changed during the Dark Ages -

imperceptibly, but visibly. In it, Turkic culture
sprouted like the young grass of spring. It would
sometimes appear suddenly and unexpectedly, in
places that no one would ever have dreamed.
For example, when the Arabs learned about, and
adopted, numbers. Of course, we are not talking here
of numbers in general, but of those which are now
called "Arabic". They were in fact Turkic numerals,
and were introduced by the Caliph Walid.
He convinced his subjects that knowing how to write
letters and messages, and how to calculate one's
income and expenses, was an art that glorified the
nation. It was this new art that led the Moslems to
great discoveries in mathematics and physics.
Arabic numerals are the same as Turkic runes and
were already well-known even before the birth of
Christ. At that time, Chinese travellers visited the
Altai and were surprised by the simplicity of the
Turkic numerals. They expressed their surprise in a
book on how to govern a country, a work that has
survived.
The Arab Caliphate was indisputably created by the
Kipchaks and their culture. It was the Turkis who
determined its Fate.

Sultan Mahmud

Until 750 the city of Damascus was the capital of the

Caliphate, and the ruling dynasty was the Umayyad
family. They were then overthrown - not by the
Kipchak Turkis, but by the Oguz Turkis. They
brought the Abbasid Dynasty to the throne, and, in
doing so, seized the reins of power.
The new rulers were called "Iranians", but this is
entirely incorrect. They could not possibly have been
Iranians.
Iran did not influence the Caliphate at all; its native
inhabitants remained fire-worshippers, not Moslems.
Different peoples of different faiths lived in the lands
of Ancient Persia. They were, however, ruled over by
the Moslems - or, more exactly, the Turkis of the
Oguz Dynasty. It was they who sat upon the throne of
the Caliphate.
The new rulers began to do everything differently. In
762 they moved the capital to Baghdad. This was far
from the only project they would undertake. The city
was laid out on a plain and built up from scratch. This
was important symbolically, as was the new city's
name: it came from Bogdo, the ancient Turkic way of
addressing Tengri.
The Abbasids wanted to do everything differently.
They proceeded to do so.
For example, earlier, every Moslem had the right to
speak his native language, honour his ancestors and
celebrate the holidays of his people. He now had to
say good-bye to all this, forever. The faithful were
obliged to speak only Arabic - the language of the
Prophet.
Having been labelled Arabs, they forgot about
everything they had had earlier. Of course, they forgot
it all in the name of Islam.
Only the Turkis could have come up with something
like this. "When among frogs, become a frog," was
their rule of life. Without stopping to think about the
death of the East and its peoples, they ordered
everyone else to live the same way.

The alien Oguz quickly got the upper hand over the
Caliphate's provinces, turning them into subjected
frogs.
Arabic soon displaced all other languages. It was a
peculiar blend of languages, very far from the
language of the Koran. In Egypt, it was not spoken
quite the same way that it was in Syria or on the
Arabian Peninsula. Although they all spoke Arabic,
people sometimes understood each other poorly.
Things did not stop there. The Moslems began to
invent for themselves an Arab genesis. The rulers
adopted such laws so that the different nations would
forever forget the past and become immersed in
ignorance - a kind of jahiliya. In the Near East, a
genuine tragedy was being played out: the Moslem
was, so to speak, being forced to be "born again". Out
of the throes of this process, a new people "came into
the world".
Everything happened exactly the way it had in
Europe. The same volcano in which other people's
cultures had melded was still bubbling. The Turkis
stood both here and at the wells of misfortune. In
assigning to them the role of creators, Heaven had
apparently decided that this should be so.

The Caliphate's rulers tossed their own into the mouth

of the volcano first - the Turkis. They understood that
they were creating a country not for Turkis, but for all
the peoples of the East. They saw their own wisdom
reflected in this.
In breaking down their identity, they were readying
themselves for victory over the Byzantines. They
needed a strong state. It still did not exist, since there
was no unity among the people. The rulers, therefore,
laid themselves out.
The old dynasty that had been overthrown never
risked making this great sacrifice, and were, therefore,
unable to hang onto the Caliphate. Under it, the power
of the Moslems was slipping away, like water into
sand. They began fighting one another for leadership
of the Moslem world. Revolts, wars, sects, arguments
- people could see that these were not strengthening
the country. Just the opposite: they were destroying it.
The Oguz immediately brought peace for all.
However, the new rulers forgot the ancient wisdom of
the Altai: "Rearing a stranger won't give you a son."
Despite enormous sacrifices, they still did not create a
new people. The Arab world would forever remain
one of disputes and struggles for leadership. The
Moslems would not be unified even a thousand years
later.

The Caliphate was woven out of conflict.

It would soon collapse, never to be united again. Its
tragedy was shared by the people. For example.
Egyptians, having begun to use Arabic, forgot their
native tongue; and the Copts - the original Egyptians!
- since they remained Christians, became aliens in
their own land.
Islam and Christianity divided the Egyptian people
into different communities. The stranger's son
remained a stranger. This is what happened in the
Caliphate.
It all happened because, even though they spoke of
unity, the new rulers didn't really want any. Thus, for
example, in 833 the new Caliph, having called
together a number of sages, asked: "How many years
will I reign?" Their answers varied. Just one, the
oldest and greyest, quietly said: "Exactly as long as
the Turkis want you to". Everyone laughed at this
bitter truth: The elite Baghdad Guard had always been
made up of Turkis. It had been this way earlier and
would be later.
The fate of Sultan Mahmud of Gazni, the "Iron
Turki", is especially interesting. The Hindus called
him "the Tatar", since they had worked out for
themselves the secrets of the Arab Caliphate. Their
knowledge of the Turkis was not hearsay. The
aristocracy of Northern India still spoke Turkic - it
was their native tongue - and needed no interpreters.
Sultan Mahmud is a well-known figure in the East.
There are few who could compare with him. In the
11th century he consolidated the Moslem lands in
Northern India. It was under him that the Caliphate
reached its apex of power. Neither mountains nor
deserts, nor rivers, nor the thundering war elephants
of the Hindus could stop this hero of Islam. He kept
on advancing to the East and was always victorious.
The Sultan was mighty on both land and sea. He
easily smashed the Indians' army, then crushed their
navy on the River Ind. The Sultan's victories
reverberated throughout the Dark Ages world:
Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and simple pagans
rushed to become Moslems. The people knew that he
who wins is the one who's right.
The Arabs had won; this meant that their faith was the
true faith.

Sultan Mahmud greatly elevated the Islamic world.

He did so not by war, but by scholars, poets,
translators, thinkers and philosophers. He made them
a part of his court and then opened up libraries for the
people. The number of cultured people grew with
each passing year, multiplying the glory of the Islamic
East. A multi-lingual suite was always in attendance
around the Sultan: Turkis, Persians, Hindus, Arabs
and Chinese.
This was a charismatic leader, a pearl in the crown of
the Caliphate - the most powerful Turki in its history.
His father, Sabuktegin, was "a slave of the slave, who
was himself a slave under the Lord and Master of the
Faithful". This is how the monarch referred to
himself.
Who were these magnificent men, these "slaves"? One
was governor of the province of Transoksiana and
Khorasan; the second was a state minister and
general; the third was head of the city and province of
Gazni. It was from here that Mahmud of Gazni came.
An aristocrat of the highest order now sat upon the
throne of the Caliphate. Brave. Strong. Intelligent.
The true ideal of a leader.
Once, in India, he raised his mace against an idol. The
horrified Hindus promised him mountains of treasure
if only he would not touch the idol. The Sultan
answered quietly: "Your entreaties are persuasive. But
Mahmud is not a trafficker in idols…" He then added:
"What will future generations say about me?" His
strength tripled, he then dealt the statue a shattering
blow.

Under Sultan Mahmud, the sun shone especially

bright in the sky.
It was at this time that the great Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
translated the works of Aristotle, thereby rescuing
them from oblivion. He learned Ancient Greek for just
this purpose. This magnificent scholar also had a
distinguished medical practice. His books on medicine
were well-known throughout Dark Ages Europe, and
generations of physicians learned their craft from
them. In addition, he was famous, too, as a great
connoisseur of the arts.
Al-Biruni, a forgotten genius of the East, also
revealed his talents at this time. He already knew that
the Earth was round and that it revolved around the
Sun. He proved this mathematically 500 years before
Copernicus, thereby revolutionising astronomy.
Of equal stature was Ibn-al-Haisam, famous for his
book "Treasures of Optics". He gave the world the
idea of the telescope and of eyeglasses. In the 12th
century, his works were translated into Latin, making
them the property of Europe.
Under Mahmud, al-Farabi, who had once translated
the works of the ancient philosophers of the West -
which were at that time banned in Europe - came
again to light. Al-Farabi had had a rare mind: He was
called the Second Teacher, second only to Aristotle.
The Talents returned to the Earth under Sultan
Mahmud. It was at this time that a new writing paper
was invented - the same material on which we write
today. This was necessary because so much was
happening: chemistry, physics and literature were all
flourishing. The sky brightened over the world and
became clearer. Precision of word and brilliance of
thought came once again to be valued.
The famous poem "Shakh-name", along with other
pearls of word and image, acquired new life. There
was a flourishing of science, literature and creativity.
The Golden Age of Moslem culture had arrived, and
people savoured all that was beautiful.

It was a Turkic renaissance that would last for many

decades, and give the world more than one poet;
Nizami Gyandzhevi was born of it. It was a time when
stars of the first magnitude shone in the firmament of
the East. As a youth, the Sultan himself dabbled in the
creative arts. At his behest, a new history of the
Caliphate was written. In it, Mahmud declared all
Turkis to be Moslems and Arabs, in order to maintain
the "bazaar of eloquence" - as he himself wrote in a
work of his own.
This is how Turkic culture was "transformed" into
Arab culture. No one any longer made any distinction
between the two. The national memory, however,
preserved that which had almost vanished into the
depths of the ages.
Moslems had always divided science and knowledge
into their own and others'. Theirs was Arab/Moslem,
while others' was "foreign" or "the knowledge of the
ancients" - that is, the Turkis', they said. Philosophy,
mathematics, geography, astronomy, mineralogy,
chemistry, physics - they all began in the Altai.
Glory be to Tengri, who has preserved the truth of
those distant times.

The Turkic Caliphate

The Oguz in the Caliphate were "doomed to triumph".

They had been nurtured by the Ancient Altai - the
spiritual homeland of the Turkic people. Central Asia
was a land of artisans, poets and scholars - the heir to
Kushan Khanate.
When the Moslem cavalry arrived in Central Asia in
the 7th century, the Oguz, once they had learned of
Islam, understood that their hour had struck. It didn't
strike loudly, but they heard it. It was no accident that
among the Ancient Turkis, oguz meant "wise". There
was deep meaning in this.
It was quite true that they couldn't defend themselves
in open battle. Many of them paid for this with their
lives or were captured and made slaves. This did
happen. However: like babies demand their mothers'
milk, Islam in the 7th century needed knowledge,
wisdom and learning. In those years the Moslem faith
was still just a sect of Christianity. No one in the
Caliphate had any idea how to create an independent
religion.
The rulers sought to create external differences; for
example, they ordered Christians to wear clothing
with yellow markings. Or to travel the Caliphate's
roads on donkeys. If they rode on horseback, they had
to do so side-saddle, like women. They couldn't think
of anything more clever than this. They had no fresh
ideas, and no new knowledge.
At that time, the Oguz had it all.

The Oguz knew little of Christianity or of Western

religion in general. This ignorance helped them to
create their own unique faith, since they had nothing
to which to compare it! They created it themselves,
relying solely on their own knowledge and traditions.
They were inspired only by the Altai and its Eternal
Blue Heaven.
It was the Oguz who made Islam, Islam - the
independent religion. New rituals appeared among the
Moslems, and their faith acquired a face very different
from that of Christianity. Meanwhile, the Caliphate
got a new leader - the Sultan, who also was unlike
anyone else.
The Sultan and the Caliph held all power in the
country - temporal and spiritual. This was something
completely new for the East, but quite common for
the Turkic world. Everything became as it was in the
Turkic nation of the Ancient Altai.
Sultan means "power": he was the temporal ruler of
the Moslem world. This was the title given to
Mahmud of Gazni.
It is curious that in the 12th century some wanted to
change the title to Shahinshah, but anyone saying
these words would have been killed: Shahinshah
means "King of Kings" and refers to the Almighty.
The Moslems did not want to call their ruler this,
since they didn't wish to have a "pope" - someone
who was "God's Representative on Earth". They were
anti-pagan.
This is how Islam grew - with its own culture and
code of honour. Sultan Mahmud proved their
superiority with his deeds.
Once, a poor man approached him to complain that an
aristocratic warrior had taken his house and wife. "I
will carry out the sentence myself," said the Sultan.
That night, he broke into the home and executed the
law in the darkness. Having done so, he then lit a
torch. For a moment he stood silently, then fell on his
knees to pray. He then ordered the master of the house
to bring him some food. With the hunger of a beggar
the Sultan attacked the stale bread. For a long time he
said nothing and ate a great deal. The master of the
house could hold back no longer. "What is the matter
with you?" he cried. Sultan Mahmud, Omnipotent
Ruler of the East, answered him: "I've eaten and drunk
nothing for three days, because I thought the guilty
one was my son. That was why I decided to carry out
the sentence myself. So that justice would not be
stayed, I didn't light the torch. Now I see, glory be to
Allah, that it was not my son."
This was how the Turkis then ruled, valuing honour
above all.

Of course, some Turkic traditions died out in the

Caliphate, while others, in contrast, took root forever.
The richer the old life was, the better the new life will
be.
Each generation strengthened the foundations of the
faith. Bukhara, Gyandja, Nakhichevan, Turkestan,
Samarkand - all were sources of a river of knowledge.
The word Tengri long remained on people's lips there.
The first Moslems used the words Tengri, Khodai and
Allah side by side. They were one and the same; only
their shades of meaning were different. In the Ancient
Altai, for example, Allah meant "Guardian Spirit".
Allah-Chayan meant "Creator" or "God". The word
Khodai also meant "God" or "Lord". To this day it is
pronounced there exactly this way.
Only one of these now remains in Islam - Allah.
The name of Tengri was heard less and less often.
This wasn't because people wanted to forget it; the
problem was with the Christians. They, too, said,
"Tengri" or "Dangri", or "Dangyr" when speaking to
God. The East wanted to be different even here.
This was necessary. Only the Moslem Turkis
continued to chant "Tengri" and "Khodai", despite the
prohibitions against it. They guarded these words like
gems handed down from their grandfathers and great-
grandfathers.

The Oguz turned out not just to be true healers of the

human spirit, but skilled hunters of it as well. They
carefully carried out a policy that changed people's
lives. For example, they changed the name of the
Altai. For Moslems it became the Holy Mountain of
Kaf - a mountain standing on an emerald, the light
reflected from which gave the heavens a greenish tint.
This was when green - the colour of an emerald -
became the colour of Islam.
Kaf lives according to the Will of Heaven, they
taught; it was from there that everything came -
earthquakes, windstorms and other vicissitudes of
Fate. This was a holy spot on the planet.
At this time both Moslems and Christians prayed
facing the East, turning their gaze towards the Altai -
or, more exactly, to Mount Kaf. It was only much
later that the Arabian Moslems altered this custom,
directing the faces of the faithful towards Mecca,
instead.

In establishing the rituals of Islam, the Oguz cut like

surgeons along the living Turkic culture. They
suffered unbearable pain, but carried on with what
they had begun. They answered every blow of the
Christians, every one of their thrusts.
There was a battle for the faith, for the God of
Heaven, for icons, for the Cross.
For example: In Byzantium in the 8th century, icons
began to be corrupted. This was done consciously and
with great skill, because the Trullo Church Council of
691 had ordered that icons should depict Christ.
Before this, he was shown as the Lamb of God - a
lamb with a shepherd's crook. Christ was given the
face of the God of Heaven, Tengri. This was an open
challenge and an injustice, one that showed disrespect
for Islam and other religions.
The Almighty had been depicted before on icons by
Moslems, Christians, Altai Turkis, and Buddhists - all
of whom believed in Tengri. In the actions of the
Greeks, however, there was a conscious attempt to
deceive, plus some cold calculation: Christ, in their
opinion, would become something of a common god -
the single God for everyone.
In response, the Caliph Abd al-Malik forbade icons to
the Moslems. From this time forward, they ceased
depicting Allah and all living things created by Him.
By the 9th century this prohibition had become a rule
of Moslem painting. They never observed it, however,
when referring to the Koran. Not only did they paint,
they painted with great talent. It is true, though, that
icons disappeared from the Moslem way of life
forever.
Thus, in the constant battle with Byzantium, Islam
searched for and found itself.

It is difficult to find oneself in the shifting sands of

spiritual dispute.
At this juncture, Jargan, a hero of the Turkic people,
was introduced into Moslem culture. He was not,
however, portrayed as he was, but differently. The
Oguz had always been masters at brewing the potion
of forgetfulness, and Jargan's name was changed for
him. Meanwhile, those who had imbibed the Oguz
concoction simply forgot about his long history.
In Moslem legends Jargan is called Djor, Djirdjis,
Khyzyr, Khyzyr-Ilias, Khyzyr-galya issalaam, Keder,
and Kederles. He was removed farther and farther
from the truth. He remained a young man, but with a
long, grey beard. He became immortal and lived on
the seashore, but not in Derbent. In poetry, reality is
always a bit improbable. This is the value of a true
legend.
Jargan entered the Moslem world as "improbable".
He can be seen to this day in the Mosque of Aiya
Sofia in Istanbul (Constantinople). From time to time,
the warrior here holds nighttime battles, invisible to
humans, with the forces of darkness. Drops of blood -
the traces of these battles - can be found on the walls
of the Mosque in the morning. The blood is wiped
away, but the spots always reappear.
In Derbent, too, at the site of Jargan's grave, miracles
occur. The local inhabitants sometimes see him -
alive, although centuries have passed since his death!
He is immortal, they say. He walks at night, talks with
others and goes to the spring that appeared there
following his earthly execution. He punishes sinners
and helps those who are suffering. His grave is a place
of pilgrimage.
Having imbibed the "potion of forgetfulness", people
no longer remember that the Christians referred to
Jargan as St. Gregory, but his legend still lives on.
Why in the world should ordinary people remember
all this? The important thing is that Islam acquired yet
another hero.

That heroes are sometimes "reborn" is quite common

in History. One can say that, among Moslems, Christ
became Isa, while Moses became Musa; their
biographies, are a bit different from those found in
Christianity. It makes no difference - they are
remnants of early Islam. The Moslems keep and
revere them as Prophets.
Unfortunately, however, politics have also intruded
more than once into History. They have distorted and
confused it, and invented all kinds of horrors. At some
point, the secret of the Monastery of al-Kusair will be
revealed. Here in the Near East, the name of Gheser,
Prophet of the Turkis, once lived on, but he is now
stubbornly denied. It was at al-Kusair that the Moslem
monastery where Hasan of Basra, the founder of
Islamic monasticism, began his work, stood. He died
in 728.
Many mysteries and secrets remain from the Dark
Ages.
At that time, East and West were battling for world
supremacy. They fought desperately. Turkis lived in
both places. They altered names, titles and dates
themselves, and they did so consciously. Behind it all
were politics: they divided up the Turkic legacy. Or,
more exactly, the culture of the Turkic people.
The West wanted to make it theirs, while the East
wanted the same.
On the Eve of Great Changes

In order to win, the East needed freedom. Freedom in

everything: in religion, in trade and in politics. Only
Islam could provide this freedom, since "Whoever has
God, has power".
In the power of the spirit - religion - the West also
saw the guarantee of its victory. The European nations
lived for the glory of the Church. Turkis also stood at
the helm of power, but they occupied no thrones;
instead, they could be found alongside them in the
royal retinues, dispensing advice. It was not they who
decided European politics; they merely took part in
them. The Kipchaks had become Europeans. This
explained everything. They now defended the
interests of their individual countries, and not those of
the Turkic world…. Other interests that had become
their own.
It was much more difficult for the Moslem East. It had
long lived under the yoke of the Empire and created
itself by itself. It had made itself in the depths of
Byzantium, out of yesterday's slaves. The Byzantines,
then masters of the world, were deathly afraid of
Islam: liars always fear the truth.
Though it had bought off the Turkic hirelings in the
4th and 5th centuries, Byzantium came no closer to
the Turkic world. On the contrary: it had developed a
strong hatred for it. The nation's prosperity depended
on the so-called Silk Road, which passed through the
lands of the Kipchaks. It was the Turkis who brought
the riches of the East to Constantinople; in doing so,
they inexplicably acquired there a reputation as
dangerous enemies.
There is, by the way, really nothing to explain or to
find surprising. Byzantium had never belonged to a
single people: Greeks, Turkis, Armenians and Kurds
had all struggled for power there, both overtly and
covertly. Policy had always been set by the victor.
Intrigues, conspiracies and assassinations were
commonplace there. It was by these that they lived.
Byzantium really should have perished - died as a
result of its own conspiracies and constant treachery.
Its fate would be decided in the not-too-distant future.
The Greeks, who had long held power in Byzantium,
lost it once and for all by the 8th century. The Greek
Emperor ruled "just so much as the Turkis allowed
him to". Afterwards, everything happened as it had in
Rome and the Caliphate: In 717, the Kipchaks brought
their own Isaur Dynasty to the throne.
The power of the Greeks was through. The politics of
Byzantium were not.

The Emperor Leo III Isaur was a native of Syria, from

the city of Germanicus. Noble Turkic blood flowed in
his veins: he wielded weapons expertly and was
passionately devoted to horseback riding. The
Kipchaks, as is well-known, had lived in the Near
East since the 4th century and had long since become
natives.
The first Emperor of the Isaur Dynasty ruled wisely
from the Byzantine throne, skilfully deciding matters
to the benefit of the nation. Leo III, a brilliant general
and politician, was distinguished by his intelligence,
instincts, fearlessness and surprising tenacity.
Once, the future Emperor led a small scouting party
across the Caucasus Mountains on skis - the plaited
snowshoes used in the Altai. At the risk of his life, it
would seem he accomplished the impossible: he made
it over the dangerous snowfields and went on to
victory…. The origins of the new Emperor gave him
fearlessness and ardour, features of the Turkic
character, in spades.
Under him, it was as though Byzantium had been
resuscitated and come back to life. In a matter of days,
it became aggressive once again and declared the
Moslems to be its number one enemy…. One can
understand its ruler. He, a Christian, had in his youth
suffered at the hands of the Arabs; and, having
become the Emperor of Byzantium, recalled the
humiliation endured when the Caliphate's Christians
were made to ride on horseback side-saddle, like
women.
The Emperor had not yet made the throne his own
when war began with the Moslems. They advanced all
the way to Constantinople and laid siege to it. A fleet
of 1,800 ships took up position in the bay off the
Golden Horn, threatening the city. No open water was
visible - ships and boats filled the bay from shore to
shore. The city faced total destruction.
The forces were clearly not equal, and defeat seemed
inevitable - or so everyone thought. Everyone except
Leo Isaur. He was not afraid, and calmly proceeded to
build up the city's defences. He sent out raiding
parties and - most important - started using Greek fire,
his secret weapon, in time to make a difference.
Simply put, he burned the enemy's ships at sea, like
steppe-dwellers burn the dry grass in a field before
their enemies.
The world had never seen such a fearsome battle. It
was as if the sea itself were aflame. The Moslems
took this to be a miracle - or, more exactly, as
punishment from God - and fled in terror.
This was no miracle, however: it had come, once
again, from the Kipchaks of the Caucasus. They, both
friends of Leo Isaur and excellent chemists, knew how
to make weapons out of oil - weapons of which no
one at that time knew anything. This was the priceless
"knowledge of the ancients". Chemistry and alchemy
had always been especially revered among the Turkis.
This is how Derbent helped the Byzantines - by
making "Greek fire" from Baku oil. They had long
used it in infantry battles in the Great Steppe. For
them it was commonplace.

The Arabs withdrew. It took a long time for them to

recover from such a horrible defeat. They were truly
afraid, and their subsequent wars with Byzantium
came to nothing. This was a cry of despair: an army
that has lost its spirit cannot be victorious, not even
over an obviously weak foe.
These "wars of desperation" would eventually lead to
the fall of the Caliphate's Umayyad Dynasty. They
were, in fact, the main reason.
With no less talent, Leo Isaur built up trade, bringing
back Byzantium's "Golden Age". He appointed new
courts and introduced new laws that greatly resembled
those of Desht-i-Kipchak. Byzantium began to use
identical laws.
"We have placed before earthly justice a woman to
mediate with the God of Heaven. She is swifter than
any sword in the battle with our enemies…". With
these words, courts in Byzantium now came to order.
They had always done so among the Turkis, who
believed firmly in the justice of the Heavenly Court.
Also of interest is the fact that the Greeks nicknamed
the people of the Isaur Dynasty "chevaliers" - "philly-
" and "horsemen". They were given these humorous
sobriquets for their passion for horseback riding.
The new Byzantine dynasty was also distinguished by
its special interest in the khanates of Desht-i-Kipchak
- Khazaria and Greater Bolgaria (Bulgaria). This had
never happened before. The Byzantines intelligently
and easily carried out their policies there.
The Kipchak khanates wanted to befriend them, the
Byzantine Kipchaks, and to form a single nation. A
surprising union between Byzantium and Desht-i-
Kipchak took shape. Leo Isaur, for example, married
his son, Constantine V, to the daughter of the Khazar
khan. Her name was Chichak, or "Little Flower".
Once she had been baptised into the Greek Church,
she assumed the name Irina (Irene). It was with this
name that she would go down in Byzantine history.
Under the Isaurs, everything changed dramatically.
Everything was now done differently; it was as if the
country had been born anew.
The khanates of Khazaria and Greater Bolgaria
became not just friends of Byzantium, but mainstays
in the battle against the Catholics and Moslems. Later,
in 864, the Bolgars converted completely to Greek
Christianity. This was clearly a political step - one
that would have far-reaching consequences for
centuries to come.
Leo Isaur did indeed introduce much that was
Kipchak in nature into Byzantine society. He himself
would spend his entire life battling against the Turkic
world. It was he who ordered that icons be corrupted
with the likeness of Tengri, in response to criticism
over their "barbarian" origins.
It was he who, for the same reason, delivered a heavy
blow against the monasteries of Byzantium. At the
same time, this deadly enemy of the Turkis and
Moslems took all that was best in Islam; for this his
contemporaries accused him of "sympathy for the
Moslems".
Was this perhaps what politics demanded? Byzantium
had always played a double game. Under its Kipchak
rulers, it was as though it had come back to life,
spread its wings, and began to prepare for war - a war
for the right to life in a new world.

However, everything happened differently than the

Greeks intended. In the 9th century their plans were
dealt a decisive blow, unexpectedly but inevitably. It
had been carefully prepared. The Pope at that time,
Nicholas I, rejected the authority of the Byzantine
Patriarch and declared his independence to the world.
This was a blow to the heart itself, an open challenge
towards the redistribution of Europe and power in the
Church. It became clear that the Greek Church,
created in the 4th century through force and treachery
by the Emperor Constantine, was living out its best
years. Awesome changes were approaching it from
both East and West.
The entire world prepared to rise up against
Byzantium - a nation that had become fabulously rich
in the early Dark Ages.
For centuries the Greeks had got rich off of
Christianity. In dictating the rules of life for other
peoples, they sat in judgment, carried out executions
and dispensed mercy. They were masters of other
people's homes and other people's pockets. Like a
river, riches flowed into Constantinople from all over
the world.
And a lot of people didn't like it, either.
The Byzantines had, however, still won the first battle
for the redivision of the world. They had been united
by a Kipchak named Leo Isaur, who repulsed the
attack from the East. The next battle, though, would
not take place between armies, but within the Church.
In spiritual disputes, the Byzantines had always been
weak.

Desht-i-Kipchak held a strong position in this battle

for power over Europe: behind it stood half the world.
It held in its hands both gold and the sword - the main
levers of politics. Most important, however, was the
fact that the Turkis no longer understood one another,
although they all spoke the same language. Some had
remained true to the covenant of Tengri; others to the
Koran or the Bible.
The nation had lost its name and, therefore, its spirit.
It had forgotten the lessons of the Ancient Altai - that
neither the sword nor money rules in this world, but
he to whom the soul of the people belongs.
On the other hand, the Italians, also enemies of
Byzantium, were distinguished by their unity of spirit.
They had been united by the Catholic Turkis, who in
756 created a semi-state on the territory of Ravenna -
a Papal enclave, the successor to which would be the
Vatican. There, the monastic orders of the Pope held
absolute power. For them borders did not exist, and
they held entire nations in the palms of their hands.
The present Vatican is a sign of Papal authority. It is
the world's smallest state, a true dwarf - but its power
is enormous, like that of all dwarves who have
subjugated giants.
There had always been giants among the servants of
the Pope - the descendants of the great Attila. There in
the Vatican, all that was Latin and all that was Turkic
have long since merged into one. No one knows
where one stops and the other begins. The lessons of
the Ancient Altai, though, have always been
scrupulously observed there: those who serve in the
Vatican are unshakable in their beliefs, and the Pope
is obeyed without question.
Everyone knows that the basis of his power is God.
Or, more accurately, the Word that reigns over the
souls of all people. To Him, they listen.

Pope Gregory VII, who initiated the Church's new

policy in 1075, was a native of Tuscany, the home of
many Italian Kipchaks. His high cheekbones and
predatory, hawk-like eyes most likely would have
earned him the sobriquet Togryl ("Hawk"), had he
lived in the Great Steppe. He hated everything that
was Turkic, the way all turncoats hate their homeland
- much too strongly.
As Pope, he issued a Decree which included his "right
to designate and crown emperors". In other words,
under Gregory, the Catholic Church declared its
authority over all the monarchs of Europe. He became
a "king of kings", evoking the ire of King Heinrich
IV, the leader of South Germany.
War soon broke out. The German Kipchaks took
Rome by storm. They were not, however, able to kill
the Pope, since the Moslems intervened. By the
sword, they cut a path to the castle where the Pope
had taken refuge and rescued him.
The Moslems were faithful allies of the Vatican.
Pope Gregory knew about Tengri quite well: while
studying the rituals of Islam, he openly declared that
he worshipped the same God as the Moslems, that the
two faiths were identical, and that they both had but
one source. It should be noted that this was a daring
thought even for the Pope.
It seems daring only today, however, now that much
has been forgotten. In those times such words were
hardly rare. Catholics and Moslems, like soldiers of
one army, had stood shoulder-to-shoulder for
centuries and had fought against Byzantium for
hundreds of years. For example, Pope Sylvester II
(who, incidentally, was also a Kipchak by blood) had,
prior to his election, spent several years among the
Moslem Turkis, studying mathematics, chemistry and
the technical sciences. In Europe, his knowledge was
imbued with an aura of legend. The tale of the famous
Dr. Faust was based on the life of Sylvester.
The friendship between the Moslem Turkis and the
Catholic Turkis is now forgotten. In those days it was
remembered, and not at all surprising.

The Turkis are indeed the main mystery of the Dark

Ages that followed the collapse of Rome. Historians
have deliberately made them darker, transforming
some events into farce, and others into
misunderstanding. It is as though they have forgotten
about the Turkic nation and its contribution to the
treasure-house of mankind.
No one, though, can alter the truth of Time. Not even
the Church.

Dissent

Of course, not all the Church's popes were alike: one

might devote himself to service, another to pleasure.
Even the Papal tiara cannot change the essence of a
person.
There were years when the Vatican's palaces were
places of wild debauchery, bloody crimes and total
ignorance. It was as if the clergy were competing with
the laity in sin - in drunkenness, sloth and other
deadly vices.
Then, with the coming of a new Pope, everything
would change. There would again be prayers, politics
and intrigues. With the passage of time, however, the
Church once again began to decline. Why? There is
no answer to this; no one has tried to find any.
Were the Turkis not the cause of this? It was
according to their traditions that the Catholic Church
had been built. They were the rulers there; this could
be seen in every detail, large and small. Nevertheless,
the Church's Apostolic Laws was written by a
Kipchak, Father Dionysius the Younger - which, most
certainly, had consequences of its own.
For example: all the popes from the 4th century on
have worn on their fingers a ring bearing the image of
a fish. This has been handed down as symbol of
power within the Vatican. The ring itself, however, is
from the Altai. How and through whom it got to
Rome is unknown, but objects with exactly the same
image of a fish have been found many times in Altai
burial mounds.
Is this pure chance? Of course not; we are talking here
about symbols! Only tengrichi - the Turkic high
priests - had such things. It was the sign that set them
apart and gave them the right to hold power. The sign
of the fish is around 3,000 years old. Among the
Ancient Turkis, it was the symbol of the sky - the
heavenly ocean.
Far from being pure chance, too, was the "Rite of
Plunder", another ritual long observed in the Church.
Following the election of a pope, the guards would
raid the Papal palaces, carrying off everything that
could be carried. The great Roman Empire knew no
such ritual. It was deeply Turkic and was called the
khan talau, the "Robbing of the Khan". It was
abolished only in the 16th centure, having fallen into
disfavour with the guards.
The Moslems also had such a "Rite of Plunder", and
they, too, got it from the Turkis. Their khan talau
usually took place following the death of a caliph. It
was carried out especially vigorously in 991, when the
palace was reduced to ruins.
This was not an act of barbarism, but a celebration of
the monarch. A bit wild, of course, but a celebration
nevertheless. It was how the people expressed their
recognition of the new authority which he had
assumed…. Of course, everything that had been
"stolen" was returned.
There are many such examples in the history of the
Dark Ages.

The battle between that which was Turkic and that

which was not would long distinguish the world, Italy
and the Vatican. Traces of it remain in the chronicles.
Here is a parable from those days; it has the
philosophy of a Turk, reveals the soul of a Turk and
explains much about the Turkis:
A teacher ordered his pupils to kill a dove, but to do it
in such a way that no one could see them. The Latin
boy slit the dove's throat inside a barn. The Greek boy
killed his dove in a dark cellar; the Celtic boy, in the
depths of the forest. Only the Turkic boy gave his
teacher a live dove, saying that the task was
impossible. "Why?" the teacher asked him. The boy
answered: "Because God sees everything. Nothing can
be hidden from him."
Earlier, the Turkis' own special concept of God and
the world lived within them. They came into this
world like no one else. The culture of their ancestors
was passed on to them with their mothers' milk, with
the lullabies and fairy tales they would remember all
their lives.
Though he may have become a Catholic or a Moslem,
a Turk nevertheless remained an emissary of the Altai.
A sense of freedom continued to live within his soul.
Inborn, like his love for his homeland, it was
ineradicable. To this day, it remains unextinguished.
A Latin who came to the Papal throne might well be
capable of sin. To him a former pagan, the faith of the
God of Heaven was alien, and he would still hope to
hide from the Almighty's all-seeing eye. He would
hope to escape Divine Judgment, not understanding
that this was impossible.
This would become a source of dissention in the
Vatican. Two peoples with different national traits
lived side by side in Italy, and they would clash in the
Church.
They were both called "Italians", but they were clearly
two different types of Italians.

The popes remained people of the culture (or, more

exactly, those rules and traditions) according to which
their ancestors had lived. This is clear from the history
of the popes itself.
For the Italians, heading the Vatican meant acquiring
power. They would occasionally buy themselves the
throne - and, along with it, the right to sin. Thus, John
XII, having donned the Papal tiara at the age of 20,
would transform the Church into a house of sin for
years to come.
The Turkis served the Church somewhat differently.
Without realising it, they remained true to their
culture and their ancestors even after they had become
Christians. Yes, they, too, were responsible for
cruelties and violence, but they did such things not for
the sake of their own peccadilloes, but for that of their
new faith.
This was the policy of those Europeans whose roots
were in the Altai.

The New Europeans

Some in Europe looked benignly on the sins of the

Vatican; others did not. The unrest and rebellions
among the Catholic parishioners were like epidemics
of the plague, but they were not surprised at them.
This is a common phenomenon of a new life.
The first to grumble about the sins of the Vatican
were the Bogomils; this is what those Catholics who
wished to return to Tengri were called. The Cathari,
who were just as dissatisfied, later took their place;
they were followed by the Albigensians. They all
spoke out for purity of faith in the God of Heaven.
They greatly disliked the high-handedness of the
Pope.
The Bogomils, Cathari and others were not some sort
of mythical nations, as historians sometimes portray
them. They were the forebears of the present-day
French, Italians, Spanish, Germans and Swiss. They
were also called Khazars or Bolgars for their
indefatigable temperament and Turkic origins. The
spirit of the Altai did not disappear all at once in Dark
Ages Europe.
It took a long time to die, in suffering and great
torment. The people remembered the banners of Attila
and their bygone pride. The Turkic spirit tried
desperately to come back to life in people bothered by
their loss of freedom. In reviving the faith of their
ancestors, they made themselves and their point of
view, known to all. It was all, however, in vain.
In essence, the entire history of Dark Ages Europe is
the story of the Turks' battle against other Turks.

Other Uluses, caught up in this battle acted

differently. They refused to fight against the Church
and left its lands behind. They fled to Scandinavia, far
from the Pope and his intrigues. There were Kipchaks
living in Northern Europe, too; they were called
Goths. Their guardian spirit was the lizard, or "little
dragon", which, in Turkic, is got.
The Runic monuments of Scandinavia from that time
and the results of Attila's 435 campaign in the
European North - where he founded a new khanate -
both tell of the Turkis.
The monuments of that time have been beautifully
preserved. There are many of them. In the Baltic Sea,
for example, there is the island of Gotland - literally,
the Land of the Goths. It is far from accidental that the
lizard, or little dragon, was the symbol of
Scandinavia. It can be seen on old Scandinavian
monuments everywhere. To this day the symbol of the
dragon has not been forgotten.
It is apparent that the Balts were at one time dominant
there. It is from them that the name of the area comes
- the Baltic.
The Kipchaks of Italy left for their kinsmen in the
frigid North most unwillingly; by doing so, however,
they hoped to keep themselves, their faith and their
culture intact. They knew how to raise livestock and
cultivate the land, skills with which the indigenous
peoples there were unfamiliar. They also knew
nothing of metallurgy or smithing. They learned all of
this from the Turkis.
In the world of the Dark Ages the rich deposits of iron
ore in the mountains of Norrland at once made
Scandinavia important. It went quickly from being
Europe's backyard to becoming a strong state. In
Rome they began speaking cautiously about the
Norsemen, courageous warriors and skilled
metalworkers. The first mention of them in the
chronicles was made in 839, when emissaries of the
Norse arrived in Constantinople. They were seeking
an alliance to move against the Catholics under the
wing of Byzantium.
The Norsemen were famous for their fearlessness and
their skill in smelting metal to make excellent
weapons. They easily conquered all of Northern
Europe. An alliance with Byzantium was for them of
the utmost importance. Much has been learned from
the old Scandinavian sagas of that time. They are true
poetic chronicles of Europe.
From them it is clear that the Norse rulers rode on
horseback. It is also plain that they embarked on sea
voyages of a military nature and brought their horses
on board with them. Their favourite foods were boiled
horsemeat and kumys - fermented mare's milk.
Occasionally, for one reason or another, the
Norsemen's horses would end up on unpopulated
islands and revert to their wild state. Some herds died
out, while others survive to this day, to the
puzzlement of biologists: How could steppe animals
have possibly got to these far northern islands?

The Scandinavian sagas are quite remarkable.

They remain to be truly studied, especially the Saga of
Viland, the wonderous master smith. It contains
striking details about the life of the Norse. It even says
that Viland made a wine cup out of an enemy's skull.
This was a purely Turkic custom, by which the
Norsemen lived.
Many also see symbols of the Altai in the famous
Saga of Sigurd, which tells of the legendary
Niebelungen. Who were these people? This is
unknown - or, more likely, has been forgotten. In
antiquity, this was what the Turks called their warriors
(niv), who served the dragon (lung), and on whose
coat of arms a dragon was depicted.
It was no accident that the dragon became the symbol
of the Norsemen. One can conclude that the song
Uber den Niebelungen has historical roots and a
master - that is, it has a past.
Moreover, magnificent rockstones, exactly the same
as those in the Ancient Altai, can be found in
Northern Europe. Archaeologists are unable to explain
why pictures on stones found in the Altai's Abakan
River and in Scandinavia, are indistinguishable.
This again is not all. Exactly the same pictures, with
exactly the same designs, could be seen on the boats
of the Norsemen. Where did they come from? Why
did "Altai" dragons adorn the jewellery of the
Scandinavians? This is a whole other story, one which
demands a separate discussion.
The ancient symbols of the Turkis can be seen
everywhere in Scandinavia.
Is it mere coincidence, for example, that the
Scandinavians came to believe in the God of Heaven?
Their Thor and Donar (or Dangir) are ways of
addressing Tengri. It is these words that are recorded
in the sagas. True, their ritual was not the same as that
of the Altai. It became infused with local religious
beliefs. This makes it even more interesting.
What they have now is a melding of cultures: The
faith of God and pagan beliefs now coexist, side by
side. The Scandinavians needed such a blending. The
indigenous population and the Turkic newcomers both
sought a union. In order to become stronger they
found it.
This union, which was forged in the Dark Ages, did
not disappear. It lives on in Scandinavia to the present
day. It is obvious that the forebears of the Swedes
were nearer to the Turkis and their culture. The love
for metal and the skills of metalworking lives on in
their descendants. The Norwegians are something else
again. Their traditions are nearer those of the Finns.
They are wonderful hunters, miners and seamen, but
they are not craftsmen. Their national temperament is
completely different.
The Scandinavians are usually taken to be one people
- the Nordics - but they are still different. Everything
there is as it is among the Italians. They feel
themselves to be different, but they cannot understand
why.
Something remains in their memory, while something
else has been forgotten.
Peoples never confuse that which is theirs with that
which belongs to others. The former is something
vital, something that one knows instinctively. How do
people manage this? Science doesn't know.
The Belgians display exactly this kind of confusion.
Two distinct peoples live in Belgium - the Flemish
and the Walloons. Time has not transformed them into
one nation, although they have lived side by side for
fifteen centuries.
Peoples do not blend together. They only forget
themselves.
The ancestors of the Flemish were Kipchaks, brought
by Attila. This is a historical fact. The clothing,
customs and holidays of the Flemish were, so to
speak, taken from the Altai and refashioned for
Europe. The metalwork, traditional handicrafts
utensils, Turkic-style dress, national cuisine (in which
garlic holds a prominent place), even their bathhouses
- everything among the Flemish is plainly Altaic.
This is especially true of their ancient designs and
jewellery - the tamga of the Altai. Of real interest is
the province of Limburg, where there are ancient
temples and monasteries, built in honour of Tengri.
There is even a city of Tangeren, which the French
also call Tongres. In 451, it saw the horsemen of
Attila on its streets. It was at that time, apparently,
that the first Turkis settled here as well.
The Flemish had forgotten their native tongue by the
15th century thanks to the persistent efforts of the
Church. It was now, so to speak, dissolved in the
many different local dialects, leaving behind traces of
itself in words that became common for all Belgians.
The Walloons, on the other hand, are descendants of
the Celts and are a completely different people. There
is not one drop of Turkic blood in their veins; they are
of an entirely different culture and way of life. In
them the sight of a horse arouses neither memory nor
joy.

The Norse gave rise to more than one nation in

Northern Europe.
There are unique Dark Ages monuments in Denmark
and Holland as well. The early history of these
countries, it is becoming clear, was written in Turkic
runes and according to Altaic rules. In Denmark the
influence of the Kipchaks is plainly more noticeable,
since there was already a Turkic population living
there before the arrival of the Norsemen. It was
brought there in the 5th century by Attila.
The Dutch and the Flemish know about their common
ancestry, but are unable to explain it. They have
forgotten about it.
Was it mere chance that the tulip was adopted as the
emblem of Holland? The Kipchaks called it "the
khans' flower"; it first bloomed on the steppe, in their
homeland. Perhaps it will also one day remind the
Dutch of the Great Steppe, the Altai and of their
forgotten past.
Without a past, there is no nation; without a past, it is
an orphan, a foundling. The symbols of one's native
land cannot be created out of thin air; one is born with
them. They make up the memory of the nation. They
are a divine pealing of bells that only their own people
can hear.

The Kipchaks explain many of the mysteries in

European history; through them much becomes clear.
For example, once one recalls the Turkis of the Dark
Ages, the debates about the mythical "Rus" lose all
meaning. It was the Norse who sometimes referred to
themselves as Rusy. Or, more exactly, to their cousins
who lived on the shores of the Baltic.
From this came their famous Rus - in other words, the
Principality (or Khanate) of Mariners. There was a
White Rus and a Black Rus and a Kievan Rus as well.
The word rus can even be found in the book "A
Collection of Turkic Dialects", written by the Dark
Ages scholar Mahmud of Kashgar. He was a great
expert on the Ancient Turkic language. He lived in
Central Asia, far from Europe and the Scandinavians.
It is likely that he had never even heard of them.
Rus (or rs) was what oarsmen were called in the
Ancient Altai - those who had from generation to
generation "lived off the oar" or earned their living by
rowing. This is why the Norsemen called themselves
this - or, more precisely, those who lived "off the oar"
on the shores of the Baltic.
It was Mahmud of Kashgar who offered this "ethnic"
explanation of the word.

"There is nothing sweeter than one's youth," teaches

the Altai. The 9th century, with its mysterious
Norsemen, who first appeared like a tornado and then
vanished without a trace, marked the age of youth for
Northern Europe.
In 865, an "English Rus" was born. It was then that
the mighty troops of the Norsemen first disembarked
in England. They were led by two brothers, sons of
the great Regnar Leatherpants. Who was he? Let us
say that no one knows for certain. However, the first
thing that his sons did in England was to obtain
horses. They knew that "you won't get anywhere if
you don't drive your horse to death". The Old Norse
"Saga of Regnar Leatherpants" is about them.
With their arrival, the Norsemen firmly established
Turkic culture in England without even noticing. It
included burial mounds, the main mark of the Great
Steppe; elegant books; magnificent jewellery and
embroidery; fine engraving and inlaying - all done
according to Altaic prototypes. It was for this reason
that they encountered no serious resistance among the
English Kipchaks.
English archaeologists have long argued over the
origins of these finds - all for nothing. The primitive
style in which the finds were executed (and which so
delights the English) is a mark of the Ancient Altai, its
tamga. This is - no doubt to the chagrin of the
archaeologists - quite true.
There is no longer anything like it anywhere in the
world.

The tracks left by the Turkis in Iceland and Greenland

are especially interesting. Once again, one can see the
"primitive style" and the Runic monuments; here, they
have been "studied" by science.

No one has genuinely studied these monuments. They

have always been treated as some kind of anomaly of
the Dark Ages - a fluke of History, transported from
only God knows where. "Experts" have tried
translating the ancient texts without even knowing
what language they were working from. The
Nibelungen is a good example of this: what they got
was not a translation, but pure rubbish - "spoiled
knowledge", a mere string of words.
The name Iceland is, by the way, also Turkic: isi was
"to become hot"; the name therefore literally means
"hot earth".
Why not? It happens to be true. Until the 11th century
they ate horseflesh in Iceland, not herring. They also
spoke Turkic. The "land of ice" interpretation that is
generally accepted today doesn't suit Iceland at all:
there are many islands in the North Atlantic that are
covered with ice, but only one that is hot - the one that
was found in the 9th century by the Norsemen. They
were surprised at how warm it was.
Even today tourists are drawn to Iceland by its
volcanoes and geysers. Volcanoes are volcanoes; we
doubt, however, if anyone knows that the national flag
of Iceland - a fimbriated cross on a dark blue field -
was once called a tug.
It is, in fact, a Turkic flag; they have kept the banner
under which Attila fought! There were many such
flags in the Ancient Altai.
Other North European flags also bore the cross,
fimbriated or not; one has only to look at the old
banners of Sweden, Belgium or England to see this.
True, there is a legend that sometime in the 12th
century, the Swedish King Erik IX saw in the sky the
gold cross that became the symbol of his country.
This may be possible, but it is not the entire truth.
This was the era when Catholicism was establishing
itself in the region, and the Vatican "tweaked" the
history of Scandinavia, just a bit.
This was the way it always acted whenever it was
consolidating its power.

In America, too, in the state of Minnesota, monuments

with Turkic runes have been found. True, they have
been declared fakes - that they could be discovered
there was simply too unexpected. There are, however,
other facts that sooner or later must be investigated.
One cannot get away from this if, for example, one
wants to learn more about the Vinland (Winlandia)
that was (according to an Icelandic saga) discovered
by Leif Ericsson in 1000 AD.
Leif was the son of the famous Norseman Eric the
Red. The first mate on his voyage was a Turki - a man
with a freckled face, high forehead and short legs. He
knew the Germanic tongue well - in other words, he
spoke Turkic fluently - loved making things and was
well-versed in the sciences.
It was he who, by happy accident, discovered
America. He even found wild grapes growing there, a
delicacy of which the Norsemen had never heard. So,
there were Turkis in America, too.
Vinland lay to the west of Greenland. It was noted by
the Norsemen on the old map mentioned above. The
ocean that washed both their shores was called
Tengyr. It is this Ancient Turkic word that cuts across
the Norsemen's map from top to bottom. In the
margins, a short text about the voyage is written in
Altaic runes.
Until fairly recently the map was kept in a museum in
Hungary. It was printed on paper whose recipe was
known only in Samarkand, which tells us a great deal.

This is how widely Fate tossed the Kipchaks around

the world.
They settled islands, founded new nations and
discovered America 500 years before Columbus. They
would do anything to avoid knowing the Pope.

The Crusades

The period following the collapse of Rome is known

as the Dark Ages, and for good reason. People will
never learn the truth about them. The Catholics
destroyed the chronicles and books of those years.
Almost nothing remains. They created thousands of
ways to kill the truth, and accomplished the truly
unbelievable. Here is just one of the methods they
used.
The Church introduced a rule for the nobility: they
had to fight (or "duel" with) a dragon. Without having
slain a dragon, no man could call himself a nobleman.
His road into high society was blocked, and his
neighbours would not open their doors to him.
What kind of dragon did they have to slay, though?
What sort of "duel" were they talking about? Europe
had no live dragons. However, the image of the
dragon, the sign of Turkic culture, was everywhere.
The Church expected one to renounce his ancestors.
He had to swear that he wished to know nothing that
was connected to "the dragon". It was a kind of ritual
duel - a bloodless duel, behind which stood murder of
the most real sort: the killing of the memory.
Here is another example which speaks volumes. The
Turkis would never stab a foe with a sabre or dagger,
calling this a disgraceful act of treachery. It was with
straightforward, slashing blows that the Kipchaks
fought. According to their rules of honour, an enemy
ought to see the blow coming.
This was noted in the Church. The Catholics of those
times were armed with broadswords, stilettos and
dirks, that is, with thrust weapons. They fairly bristled
with weapons. In single combat in the narrow and
tangled city streets of the period, they prevailed. The
Church had never cared about the rules of a fair fight.
Thus, the sabre gave way to the broadsword, and
nobility to baseness. The Catholics, though, connected
their victory with the fact that the broadsword
resembles a Latin cross, and that in it (they said) lies
the Victory of Christ.
They remained silent about everything else.

Pope Gregory VII also proposed the Crusades to

Europe for the "Victory of Christ". In reality, though,
it was not for the sake of rescuing the grave of Christ
(the coffin of Christ, as it was thought at that time that
the body of Christ was placed in a coffin) that he
plotted these wars - the bloodiest and most senseless
wars of the Middle Ages.
A horrible new period in history was about to begin.
By the 11th century, Western Europe had become
sufficiently strong to launch an attack on Byzantium
and the Islamic East. It was now important for the
Pope to incite the people to a war for power over the
world. This resulted in a policy known as the
Crusades. It would last for almost two centuries.
This happened, to be exact, despite the fact that there
were in Palestine, which bore the brunt of the Pope's
new war, no coffins and certainly not the coffin of
Our Lord, since the Jews did not bury their dead in
coffins. So, the truth be told, there was nothing about
which to fight.
War, however, was needed. A war from the Atlantic
to the banks of the Euphrates, one that would plunge
the world into flames. The Church came up with the
myth of "the coffin of Our Lord", which had
apparently been seized by heathens.
Agents of the Pope arranged a pogrom in Jerusalem
against the Christians, and blamed it on the Moslems.
This served as the grounds for war. A man called
Peter the Hermit, who had been tormented since birth
by deliriums and nightmares, helped. This unbalanced
youth had married a wicked older woman for her
money, but the marriage did not bring him any
happiness. Peter exchanged the rich home of his wife
for the cell of a monk. In 1094, he went to Jerusalem
at the insistence of the Pope. There, it seems, he was
approached by Christ, who said: "Peter, tell the
faithful about the plight of the holy places, arouse
them to cleanse Jerusalem and rescue their shrines
from the hands of the pagans."
These words would lead to the start of the Crusades.
With them, the Catholics began a war against their
long-time allies - the Moslems.
It was at this time, too, that the first outrageous stories
appeared about Islam being the enemy of all
Christians and the whole humankind. Vicious lies
about it were being spread on every street corner, in
every home. The Pope's agents operated like a well-
tuned-up mechanism, precisely and without fail. From
monastery to monastery, from city to city, they spread
their rumours. The slander circulated, penetrating into
people's souls, and engendering hatred for the
Moslems.
The Catholics wanted to push the Greeks out of the
Mediterranean, and they needed a new policy to do so.
Pope Gregory VII was one of the Church's most
perspicacious popes.

As was noted long ago, however, one man, no matter

how great and powerful, cannot really accomplish
anything, since there are no perfect people. On the
other hand, there are grandiose plans! They bewitch
entire nations, and transform even the wisest among
them into gullible fools.
Pope Gregory VII's call to arms for a "War for God"
was one such plan.
He planned not just the conquest of the
Mediterranean: he also wanted to exhaust Europe and
deprive it of its strongest and most enlightened
people. This was the first and most secret aim of his
plans for the Crusades. The Church had long dreamed
of simultaneously being "the temporal and spiritual
emperor". The Pope thought to destroy those in his
flock who were dangerous to him, above all the
nobility and idle youth. In other words, "all young
men of military age", as they were called.
At that time, the West lived according to the concept
of "God's World", which forbade war and any sort of
hostilities between Catholics. This idea arose in the
south of France and won the hearts and minds of
Europe's kings. It was supported by the people. There
was something bewitching about it; it also sounded
sweet to the Turkic ear. Trenga Dei - "God's World".
Like a distant echo of the forgotten Tengri, it soothed
the ear. In the blood of the Latin Kipchaks, memories
of the majestic past were stirred. What had been was
remembered once again.

Throughout the year 1096, throngs of people streamed

into the large cities of Western Europe. Their squares
and streets could not accommodate all those who
wanted to volunteer. People sewed crosses made out
of red cloth - the emblem of the Pope's army - onto
their right shoulders, and became crusaders.
"God has willed it, God has willed it," the then Pope
Urban II never tired of repeating. Urban took the
crusaders under his own personal protection: he
absolved them of their sins and forgave all their debts.
Everything he could do for them, he did, and for them
only.
A great many people sewed the cross on their
clothing. They were undoubtedly very religious, but
they had been deceived by the Pope. They were being
herded to their deaths, like young bulls to the
slaughter. They never even guessed it.
Noblemen and their children, peasants and artisans -
all prepared for the march on Jerusalem, for the
liberation of the Holy Land. Families gathered from
Toulouse, Burgundy, Flanders - in a word, from all of
the Turkic lands of Western Europe. They were
preparing to work a miracle: to fight for something
that didn't exist.
It seems astonishing, but few of the crusaders knew in
what country the Holy Land lay, or why and to whom
it was important. Their leaders had no plan of action.
One was, incidentally, hardly needed, since the Pope
was leading people out of Europe to their certain
deaths. What was important to him was the fighting
between the Western and Eastern Turkis; he wanted
the maximum possible number of casualties. The
Church would win no matter how the war turned out.
Whenever speaking about "pernicious" Islam, though,
the Pope lied baldly. There is in the Koran nothing
about the subjugation of other nations - not even a
hint at it. On the other hand, it does say that it is to
faith's detriment if it is imposed by force and deceit.
For Moslems, this is a sin. Only by the Word, only by
personal example, can Islam be spread.
Each thing with which the Pope came up was worse
than its predecessors, but never once did he think of
the Truth.
The crusaders, knowing nothing about Islam, began
the war. They cared nothing about knowledge and
books. They thirsted for blood and the fabled riches of
the East. This is what attracted many of them.

The looting began at once. On the way to Jerusalem,

the Pope's warriors provisioned themselves by
plundering settlements and robbing everyone they
came across, while the monks fed them nothing but
rumours. Women and children marched alongside the
troops; the whole thing resembled a migration of
peoples. It was just the opposite, however: they were
marching not to settle new lands, but to die in them.
The crusaders took practically every major city for
Jerusalem and would begin preparing for the attack.
Flowing turbidly, the blind mass moved on, ever to
the East. It gathered new members and new allies: the
power of the crusade's message drew people and
ignited their passion.
It was a scene of general confusion. Society's rejects
marched alongside the gentles of the nobility.
Genuine thieves, for example, led the crusaders from
England. They were helped along by a robber who
burned a cross into his body and declared that it had
been done "by the hand of God".
It was also said, incidentally, that "a thief who has
killed dozens of people has a chance to do good, too".
At this time, everything was forgiven, and everything
was encouraged - if only to increase the number of
crusaders.

The inhabitants of present-day Germany, then part of

the Holy Roman Empire, at first viewed the throng of
crusaders as a herd of wild animals. The Bavarians
and Saxons laughingly referred to them as victims of
"false and foolish hopes". The Germans remained deaf
to the words of the Pope's preachers; they had no love
for Urban, and their emperor, Henry IV, had once
even gone to war against him. However, the example
of their French and English cousins proved
contagious. The German Kipchaks were infected with
an irresistible urge to migrate.
Turkic blood awoke in the Holy Roman Empire, too.
The number of crusaders from the German lands grew
literally before one's eyes, even despite the protests of
the Emperor. A goat and a goose were placed at the
head of the detachment from the Rhine, and declared
them the "leaders of the expedition".
This was hardly unexpected; everything was as it
should have been, since the sheep and the swan were
ancient Turkic symbols - guardian spirits. They hadn't
been forgotten; they had by now just been redrawn
slightly in people's consciousness.
The blending of cultures can be seen wherever one
does not expect it. This is what makes ethnography so
fascinating.
For example, there is very little that is known for
certain about the Pope's army. There is almost no
reliable data. No one knows of whom it was made up,
of what nations it consisted. There is one thing we do
know, though, and that is the religious songs that were
sung by those who took part in the Crusades. They
were sung by choirs, which makes a great many
things clear. What were these songs?
The Church called them "pilgrims' songs". They were,
of course, ascribed to divine origin, since they were
believed to have united the multilingual peoples of
Europe. But did they really?
These songs, it becomes clear, sounded identical in
the languages of the Italians and the French, the
English and the Germans. They were ancient
campaign songs of the Turkis who marched in the
"multilingual" mass of crusaders; the people sang folk
songs in their native language. All the same, one
shouldn't forget that every second European was
Turkic by blood, as had been true since the time
following the Great Migration of the Peoples.
It was memory that united the people then. The
tradition of campaign songs, as is well-known, was
brought to Europe from the Altai; it did not exist there
earlier. This is why the English could then speak with
the French and the Germans without interpreters.
They all understood one another: Turkic was the
common language of intercourse in Europe.
It was not forgotten entirely until the 15th century.

No one feared the crusaders as much as the

Byzantines, for they saw in them the face of their own
death, and could feel its breath. The Catholics "for the
sake of appearance headed for Jerusalem", reported
one Byzantine chronicle of the period, "and are now
capturing Constantinople, instead".
Of course, the crusaders at once began pillaging here,
too - in the capital of Christendom. They broke into
churches, seized all the accoutrements and valuables
they could lay their hands on, and then sold them -
back to the Greeks!
The looting didn't last long however; the Greeks
hurried to transport their guests over the Bosporus -
the strait separating Europe from Asia, and the
Christian world from the Moslem world. They were
then on their own; the Byzantines did not join in the
campaign to liberate the greave of Christ.
The most horrible part lay ahead: an unprepared army
cannot long survive in an alien land. Of course, they
didn't defeat the Moslems. The chronicles of this
crusade say simply that "The bones of the Christians
were heaped in mountains".
Mountains of bones were the result of the Pope's
policy.
The Church, incidentally, needed no military
victories. Even the taking of Jerusalem by the
crusaders in 1099, and the massacres, arranged by the
Christians in the Holy Land, that took place in the
homes of Jews and Moslems, didn't cheer the Pope.
He regarded them as he would a toothache which just
has to be endured. What could the real generals -
Count Raymond of Toulouse, who led the troops from
Southern France; Hugo Vermandois; Duke Robert of
Normandy; Gottfried of Boulogne, and others - do?
They had no special rights in the Pope's army. They
set aside their fears and risked everything; and, at
first, they were victorious. But only at first.
Eventually, the Moslems would defeat the Catholics
utterly, and the slave markets of the East would
overflow with new human wares. Which is what the
Pope secretly wanted.
There would be other crusades later, in 1148 and
1191. They ended the same way. This would happen
again and again. In 1212, there was the Children's
Crusade. Tens of thousands of children set off to
perish in the Holy Land. The Pope's servants led them
not to Jerusalem, but directly into the slave markets of
Egypt.
Europe lost millions of people during this period. On
the other hand, though, the Church would amass tons
of gold in exchange for its human merchandise.

The triumph of the Roman Catholic Church began

with the suffering of the people. It had won the
crusades. The power of the nobility, the Pope's main
enemy, was at an end. Dejection reigned in the cities
of Europe.
It was at this time that new Papal troops entered the
arena - the knights' orders of the Templars and the
Hospitallers. They supplemented the monastic orders
that had served the Pope for centuries.
The Templars began to conduct trade and to lend
money on terms favourable to themselves.
Meanwhile, the Hospitallers began caring for the sick
and wounded. They were responsible only to the
bishops; secular officials had no authority over them.
Were these new monks really so harmless? Under
their white cloaks, the Templars secretly wore armour
and carried weapons. For the time being, they
remained hidden.
And so, soldiers became servants of the Church. Their
power was without limit. In every one of his sermons,
the Pope suggested to the laity that it was, of course,
on account of their many sins, their fault that the
Crusades were unsuccessful.
The faithful agonised over their own imperfections.
Most certainly, God had abandoned them.

Was it not at this time that the word "feudal" came

into common use? Each nobleman, major and minor,
felt he had lost something of his rights and power. In
hiding from their shame, people sought to be alone:
they locked themselves away behind the walls of their
castles and avoided guests.
It became a time of solitude and reflection.
Some noblemen left their hereditary estates and
entered monasteries. Some monks fled into the forests
and became hermits. All decent people in Western
Europe prayed for their sins - whether actually
committed or not - to be forgiven.
They prayed, fasted, tortured and flogged themselves.
The land, the castles, the palaces - all fell improbably
in price. The peasants were handing over their
livestock and harvests to the landlords almost for free.
Someone, however, was buying up all this discarded
wealth - those silent servants of the Pope, the
Templars. It was at this time that the Church became
fabulously rich; this was yet another result of the
Crusades.

Gentiles and Knights

A madness hung over Europe.

It would mark an entire era - the era of the Crusades.
Art, science, and morality would go into decline, and
the people would become desperately impoverished.
The Church, like a winepress, came crushing down on
society, and no one dared resist it. Everyone kept
silent.
People lived from prayer to prayer, from fast to fast;
even their own thoughts were no longer theirs. The
peoples of Europe became toys of the Pope. For the
latter, this was not enough. He feared that the
"madness" would pass, and the people would see
through it all. He therefore began readying an army.
His own, special corps. Not an order of monks, but an
order of warriors. Its creation was a step that had long
been considered.
It all began far, far away. The idea itself was a stroke
of genius: thousands of peaceful pilgrims had been
sent to Palestine - in and of itself, a harmless enough
undertaking. Great multitudes rushed to see "the land
Our Lord trod". Religious fervour enveloped towns
and villages during the Crusades like the smoke from
a fire.
The Pope's people awaited them in Jerusalem. They
incensed the pilgrims with things like: "Our enemies
control the holy places." The pilgrims seethed with
fury and malice. They themselves began talking about
new crusades, about protecting the Church, about
raising a Papal army.
They began proposing such things to the Pope
themselves.

The Church played upon the tender chords of the

human soul. People obediently did whatever the Pope
wanted; they were marionettes in the hands of a
skilled puppeteer. He even filled their heads with his
thoughts. He said, for example, that in Palestine in
1099, the crusaders saw St. George on horseback, a
severed head held under the warrior's arm. This was
labelled a miracle, and St. George was declared to be
a crusader, a knight, and a servant of the Pope.
This event was clearly fictitious from beginning to
end, but it nevertheless entered the history of the
Church. There soon appeared another legend about St.
George: the warrior was placed on a horse's back and
forced to slay a dragon.
Once again, the slaying of a dragon. Once again, a
blow aimed at Turkic history. Once again, the
sneaking act of a coward.
In accordance with the will of the Church, Jargan, the
holy figure of Desht-i-Kipchak, became a mounted
assassin. The Pope needed him this way - cruel,
bloodthirsty, murderous - because Turkic Europe
remembered him differently, as a nobleman. There
remained, for example, an old Anglo-Saxon legend
that was documentary evidence of George's execution
in Derbent. In England and other countries, fealty was
sworn in the name of St. George. The Turkis had
never forgotten their patron spirit.
The Pope remembered him well, too. He therefore
wanted to make the Turkic hero his servant - a
crusader, a killer.
Ever since 498, George had been alien to the
Catholics; he was now brought closer, and an army of
knights was created - for him, not for the Pope. This
was the latest ruse of the Church; and, like all the
others, it was believed.
A new class was then declared in Western Europe -
the knights. St. George the Dragon Slayer became
their holy patron.

It should be noted that there had been knights in

Europe earlier. They were servants of the nobility -
horsemen, clad in armour. In battle, they covered the
rear of their master. A martial life was the lot of the
knight. His profession was the arts of war. This is how
it had been ever since the 4th century, since the
coming of the Kipchaks.
The knights' masters were called "gentiles"; it is from
this word that the modern term "gentleman" is derived
(gentile - gentilman - gentleman). Rome first heard
this Turkic word in 312; it referred to those of noble
birth.
Gentiles, as the historians of those times wrote, at one
time served in the army of Rome, then moved on to
conquer the whole of the Empire. They prided
themselves on their foreign exalted station and
guarded it zealously.
Who were these people?
Much has been written about them, but the most
important detail is always omitted: they lived
according to Turkic laws - the laws of the yurts and
the khanates. In other words, with their authority.
Inside the Empire, this is where their "foreign exalted
station" lay. It was the Khan who ruled there. He was
called king, duke, or count, and the lands of the yurt
were divided among barons.
The gentiles' customs were indistinguishable from
those of the Great Steppe. The people believed in
Tengri, so the Catholics called them pagans. They
spoke Turkic and fought on horseback. They never
travelled anywhere on foot. They were Kipchaks;
everything about them was Kipchak.
Ulus? Yurts? Hordesmen? What did they call
themselves? We no longer know. In the 12th century,
they already had Latin names. Their Turkic
sobriquets, however, remained. For example, the
famous Sir Lancelot had a domestic name - Telegi.
The legendary French knight Charles the Bold was in
fact called Temir - or, as the French now write,
Temeraire. He was the Duke of Burgundy. It also
turns out that King Charles the Great, the founder of
France, was known in his lifetime by a completely
different name, if one is to believe the documents of
those times. His name was pronounced Charla-mag,
which in Turkic means "call to glory". This is how it
has been preserved in, for example, England, where
he is known as Charlemagne. Latin historians later
altered many historical names to their own, Latin
manner - and History lost much of its former colour.

The gentiles, once they became dukes and kings, liked

to sit on the floor with their legs drawn up under
them. In the chronicles of those times, a note has
survived that the French King Louis I, the Pious,
received guests in just such a fashion.
The floors of his castle were covered with carpets,
while piles of pillows were stacked in the corners.
Towards evening, the tents (epervier) would be set up
in his bedrooms with beds put in them. Indoors, he
walked around barefoot in an embroidered caftan
(sapan). His palace contained lodgings for guests and
separate quarters for women. Alongside the hearth
stood the figure of the dwelling's guardian spirit.
Figures exactly like this were made in the Altai, and
of felt also.
The gentiles' feasts were identical to those in Attila's
palace. Everything was the same: the horseflesh, the
kumys, the airan (sour clotted milk diluted with
water); the throne, the jesters, the same Eastern
dishes, the same songs and entertainment. True,
mounted servants appeared in the halls of the palace;
this was indeed something new. Food was brought
directly to the table, to the delight of the guests. Folk
customs - they never change!
One can say that the funeral ceremony for gentiles
was the same as the Kipchaks': the deceased's horse
was buried along with him. Their bodies were
embalmed according to Altai custom. This is how the
English King Edward III was buried in 1376, the
French Count Gaston of Foix in 1391, and many other
important liege lords. They departed this world like
true Kipchaks.
The Church then forbade burial with one's mount. No
more burial mounds would be seen in Western
Europe; they disappeared forever.
Until the 15th century, the European Kipchaks
remained true to their ancient rituals. They were
followed down to the smallest details. Feasts were
held following funerals, and faces would be shaved
and hair plucked out in grief. Everything remained as
it had been under Attila, and everything would
eventually be forbidden.

Gentiles considered it a disgrace not to keep one's

word, or to insult a woman. For such offences, knights
beat the guilty one with their fists; he was beaten until
his helmet would slide off his head. They had the fist
law, which helped to settle much.
They would help each other, however, without
question. And God forbid that they should either sell
or lend something. One wouldn't even be beaten for
this; the guilty one's helmet would be torn off his head
and flung onto the ground. This signalled the loss of
his honour; the offender ceased to be a gentile, and his
horse was taken away from him. The only choice
open to him after this was either to commit suicide or
become someone else's hired man.
Also dishonourable was a mesalliance, or an unequal
marriage.
Marriage contracts were concluded with the families
of such warriors. There was no place for aliens here:
one had to have four generations of gentile ancestors
behind oneself in order to enter into their society and
become one of them.
People not of noble birth, along with foreigners, could
evince themselves; they were given that chance. A
feat of arms would make the courageous one the
progenitor of a new noble family. The khan (or king)
would give him a mark of distinction - an award, or
order. Once having been dubbed a "noble man", he
would then be received into the gentiles' society.
The eldest son would inherit his father's title. Only
after his own feat of arms, again recognised with an
order, was he granted the right to transfer the noble
title to his own children. A new noble family would
then appear.
This was not enough, however, to become a member
of the nobility. The family received all of a gentile's
rights only after two more generations of honourable
service. The higher the order, the greater the rights.

It was hard work, being a Turkic nobleman. One had

to live according to a code of honour in which no false
step was forgiven. For example, to drop or dip one's
banner was considered a most heinous disgrace, and
amounted to one's own voluntary death.
A man's life was worth less than a farthing among the
gentiles, since they valued neither life nor earthly
riches - only honour and courage. Youth were trained
for combat from childhood.
A boy, even if he were of the most noble birth, would
be sent to serve as a page at the palace of another
gentile. The chores of a page were traditional: looking
after his master's horse, cleaning his weapons, doing
military exercises and cutting the withes. He would be
beaten mercilessly for any transgression.
In the Great Steppe, this was called atalyk. Both Attila
and Aktash went through it, as well as every other
Turkic boy who grew into a famous general - even
Aetius.
One cannot live without such labours - and one
certainly cannot become a man. One must love one's
work.
A boy would labour on; he would grow up, waiting
for a chance to prove himself - to win a tournament
among his peers, to distinguish himself in the horse
races at a royal wedding, or even better - to triumph in
a real battle. This was the dream of every page in
Western Europe - and of every ulan (a young mounted
warrior) in the Great Steppe.
In coming up with the knights' orders, it was as
though the Church had looked into the dreams of
every young Kipchak. It made these same gentiles
"knights" - "Defenders of the Church". This is
essentially what happened after the Crusades. The
meaning of the words was altered slightly, and
everything changed: the feudal lords became servants
of the Church.
Having created new symbols that immortalised the
knights' noble birth, the tamga was dubbed a "coat of
arms". It is highly instructive that the sign of Tengri -
the equilateral cross - remained on many of these
devices. Not a Latin symbol - a Turkic one.
Three colours - red, white and blue - adorned the
knights' banners. These were also ancient symbols of
the Altai, the three colours of the Eternal Blue Sky.
The Turkis praise heaven to this day with ribbons of
these colours.
Almost everything was altered at this time. But no one
was able to really change anything.

The culture of the gentiles remained; the new once

again became the old. The knights' tournaments were
definitely transformed.
Earlier, whole provinces of commoners would turn
out to watch these mock battles between gentiles. The
fighters would take their time getting ready. The
things they came up with were amazing: each
tournament was a veritable parade of arms, a display
of the military arts. The spectators, assembling for the
festivities of strength, argued over the merits of the
combatants, placed bets, and hawked their prizes.
Hunting falcons were sometimes offered as
tournament prizes; more often, though, the prize was a
kiss from a noblewoman, a lady. For one of these,
knights were prepared to go through fire and water.
Tournaments occasionally turned into real battles. For
example, in 1274 King Edward and his English
knights had a go at the Count of Chalons and his
Burgundians. They fought quite conscientiously -
many Papal knights were lost in this battle, and they
were eventually forced to yield. The Pope used this as
an excuse to outlaw all tournaments. He ordered all
those who violated this ban excommunicated from the
Church, and forbade their burial in consecrated
ground; they were to be ruthlessly oppressed.
The tournaments, however, were by no means ended -
nor could they have been. They were a school of
courage, and not only for the young. The Pope then
ordered that the fighters go into battle with lighter
armour, and that their weapons deliberately be
blunted. Everything was at once reduced to play-
acting, and the tournament was transformed into
theatre - nothing more than a pretty show.
This meant death for the professional warrior caste:
the abolition of actual fighting led to disaster. Once
they were used to mock combats - theatrics - knights
began losing real battles. Tragedy, as is well-known,
always happens unnoticed.

The descendants of the khans also failed to notice how

they had learned to hold the stirrup for the Pope
whenever he mounted his horse. They, the nobles of
the Turkic people, having become servants of a living
person, perished.
No, it was not the knights who perished then, but the
Kipchaks of Western Europe. Their nobility. Because
the nobles dipped their banners, and this was death.
A nation should dip its banner only to God. For Him,
and only for Him, may one hold the stirrup. Turkic
speech was heard less and less often in the knights'
castles in the 13th throughout the 14th centuries, until
it died out - forever.

The Seljuk Turkis

During the Crusades, the East took Byzantium's place

as the Devil's offspring. Many reasons were found to
hate the Moslems. It turned out that they revered the
cross, Jesus Christ (Isu), Moses (Musu) and St.
George (Djirdjis), and it was difficult to come to
terms with these inequities. The West felt vulnerable.
It should be noted that at this time the East and the
West were not very different from one another. They
just seemed different; the traditions of Tengri were
being carried on in both, the Turkic service to God
lived on in both.
It was politics, not religion, that divided the people.
The Pope, having become head of the Christians, now
wished to become head of the Universe as well. He
was dubbed nothing less than The Intermediary
Between God and His People, Christ's Deputy on
Earth. Another view of the future was held in the
Caliphate, however: it did not want to be transformed
into a colony again. So the East, knowing the
disposition of the Roman Catholic Church, began to
distance itself from Rome even farther.
Earlier, when the Catholics and the Moslems had a
common enemy Byzantium - they did not look for
differences between themselves. Sultan Seljuk, the
founder of the Caliphate's new dynasty, in conquering
Eastern Byzantium, marched almost all the way to
Constantinople, but didn't touch the city.
In the 11th century, under Sultan Alp-Arslan, the best
lands in Asia Minor de facto subjected themselves to
the Caliphate, and once again, the Arabs did not touch
Byzantium. Why did they let such a prize slip through
their fingers? The country was hanging by a thread
and could have become easy prey militarily. The
Moslems did not take it, though, because they had
given the Byzantines the right to choose their own
religion - and, subsequently, their fate.
Once they were acquainted with Islam, almost all the
Christians in the eastern provinces of Byzantium
accepted it, and did so voluntarily. This, of course,
had repercussions within the country: the word of the
Emperor became a hollow sound. Palace intrigues and
coups d'etat began. Byzantium was growing weaker
before one's eyes.
The Caliphate, however, still did not interfere. It
waited.

The Catholics used the lull in the storm to launch a

new Crusade. It was the fourth; by now, they no
longer even thought about the Holy Land. In 1203,
their fleet dropped anchor near Constantinople.
Almost 20,000 crusaders disembarked and began
setting up camp. The Army of the Pope stood before
the city - knights wanting to settle the fate of the
Byzantine throne in one fell swoop.
They didn't settle anything, however. During
negotiations, the Greeks lied to them. Realising they'd
been deceived, the crusaders prepared to storm the
city.
To anyone else, an attack would have seemed absurd.
The huge city had an enormous army: 100,000
soldiers, made up of Norse mercenaries and Kipchaks
from Eastern Europe. They hadn't been paid, however,
and they didn't want to fight. Even though the army
was huge, it might just as well not have been there.
Time was on the side of the knights: their bravery
paralysed the enemy with fear. And not just bravery.
The Pope knew that the end was nigh for the empire
of the Greeks. It was disintegrating; the people were
at a crossroads of faith and there was no unity among
them. If this were so, they could be taken barehanded,
with a minimum of forces. This time his assessment
would be absolutely correct.
The order was finally sounded. On April 9, 1204,
under a deafening roar of drums, the crusaders hoisted
their banners. The storming of the city - or, more
accurately, the battle between David and Goliath -
began. The tiny fleet sailed against the huge giant.
The attack was repulsed. Three days later, however, a
new attack was launched. And the giant fell.
The feast of the victors began. It went on for a long
time: for two weeks, Christians killed other
Christians. Women and children were tortured.
Mountains of corpses filled the streets; there was no
time to bury them. Constantinople, where no enemy
had ever set foot, surrendered to the mercy of the
Papal sword.
There was enough booty for everyone. Valuables
filled sack after sack. As one eyewitness wrote, "not
since the beginning of the world had so much been
looted in one city…. He who had earlier been poor
became rich and propertied".
Pope Innocent III rejoiced upon hearing that the
Greek capital had been taken. However, he wrote an
angry letter to the crusaders. This was a deliberate
deception. In cursing them, he praised them - and he
praised himself.
The crusaders gave Byzantium a new name - the Latin
Empire, in honour of the Pope. On May 9, 1204,
Baldwin of Flanders was elected Emperor. The new
country wasn't too successful, though: it soon
perished, due to its own weakness, and split into
different commonwealths and khanates. Its ports
passed into the hands of the Templars - the new
masters of the Mediterranean Sea.
From this time on gold from the trade with the East
flowed into the Pope's coffers.

Of course, the Moslems could have intervened in

these events. The Caliphate's army was never far
away, and a troop of knights would have been no
match for it. It made absolutely no move, however.
The treasures of Byzantium held no attraction for the
Arabs. For the East they remained cold and alien.
As before, the star of Enlightenment dawned over the
East of the Middle Ages. Once again, gold was not its
main aim. The Moslem rulers devoted themselves to
architecture, art and the sciences. Whether this was
good or bad is not for us to say. But it was clearly not
gold that ruled among them.

…The inheritors of Byzantium declared themselves

the Trapezus and Nicaea empires. True, the word
"empire" is, perhaps, a bit too strong a term for them.
We are talking here of two very small countries. In the
former, the relatives of the Georgian kings held
power; in the latter, the Greeks.
Trapezus was supported by the horsemen of the
Queen Tamara. She had placed as rulers there her
distant relatives, the brothers Alexius and David, who
had adopted the name "the Grand Comneni". It was
said that their clan came from the Kuman ("Swan")
Steppe, which lies between the Don and the Dnieper,
in the very heart of Desht-i-Kipchak. Everyone there
was called kumani or komani. Their guardian spirit
was the swan.
The relative of the Brothers Comneni was famous for
having founded the Batchkov Monastery. Georgian
youths from noble families would be brought here -
once again, to the Great Steppe - to be educated. The
ruling brothers were themselves blue-eyed, fair-haired
and very handsome, like all Kipchaks.
It was no accident that the Comneni should have
appeared in the Transcaucasus.
In the 11th century, King David the Builder invited
40,000 families from Desht-i-Kipchak to come and
settle in the Transcaucasus. Turkis, who made up the
backbone of his army, had brought all the little
principalities together into the unified state of
Georgia. Or, more accurately, Gyurdji, as it and the
blue-eyed Georgians who radiated the warmth and
strength of the Great Steppe were called. It was the
Golden Age of the Transcaucasus, and its neighbours
learned of a new land; every second princely clan
there had Turkic roots.
In 1118 King David himself married a second time, to
the sister of a famous Kipchak, Khan Konchak - the
same Khan Konchak who captured the Russian Prince
Igor and held him for ransom. And the man who made
Queen Tamara happy was also a Turkic khan -
Utamysh….
With the arrival of the Turkis in Georgia, a new script
appeared: mkhedruli, or "the warriors' handwriting".
Like Turkic script, it had 38 letters. On the surface, it
recalled the writing of the ancient Turkis. The
possibility cannot be excluded that the rulers of the
Trapezus Empire wrote their orders and decrees in it.
As politicians, these two ruling brothers turned out to
be too intolerant. They had courage, but not a great
deal of skill. They could have won, but lost instead.
For in life one cannot live without a faith and without
allies. In a word, like birds caught in a cage, they
became vassals of the Caliphate in 1215.
In tribute every year Alexius paid the Sultan 12,000
gold coins, 500 horses, 2,000 cows, 10,000 sheep and
50 sacks of various goods. Most important, he was
obliged to hold the Sultan's stirrup whenever he went
riding.
Trapezus ignominiously fell from the orbit of world
politics: like a meteor, it flashed and burned out in the
sky.
The Seljuks could have decided the fate of all
Byzantium's successors then and there. However, a
new force appeared in the world - one which grew
ominously, like a storm cloud on the horizon.
Its name was Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan

After Attila, the Turkic world was dying slowly. It

was engulfed in internecine strife. From Baikal to the
Atlantic, from Muscovy to the Indian Ocean, trouble
was always afoot. Turkis preyed upon Turkis for
centuries and without mercy.
Almost all the wars that were fought following the
collapse of Rome were their wars. Kipchaks served in
all the warring armies - some for the Italians, some for
the Byzantines, some for the Arabs - and still others
for themselves, or for someone else.
War had long since become the nation's way of life.
In the 5th century, having been deprived of its future,
Attila's empire was split by petty squabbles. Internal
troubles weakened the Caliphate, too.
The Moslems had once had a strong army. They were
unrivalled in politics, science and the arts. Many
things happened to change this, however. They were
not, though, done in by disputes among their rulers;
these have always been and will always be. No, the
fate of the Caliphate was decided by a single blow
dealt from the East. The Arabs themselves had
summoned it.
It was the Altai that dealt them the killing blow.

After the Great Migration of the Peoples, the Altai

was an island lost in an ocean. It was as though
mankind had forgotten all about it. They knew about
the Roman Empire, Byzantium and the Caliphate;
about the Altai they knew nothing.
It then reminded the world of itself.
It was reminded by the birth of a great Turki, a genius
for all times and peoples. His parents named him
Temuchin. The boy was born in Delegun-Buldak, a
holy place on the banks of the Onon. The Kerulen
meadows were the first see him. The child's father,
Yesugei-bagatur, ruled in the foothills of the Altai. He
upset his envious foes too greatly, however, and they
poisoned him.
They wanted to kill the dead ruler's family as well. In
their way, though, rose his son with a sword in his
hand. The brave lad was just 13 years old. However, a
sweeping flame blazed in his eyes and his face glowed
with the radiance of victory. His enemies, having got
a good look at him, were fairly taken aback with
surprise. This saved the boy, and they let him go
without touching him.
He went very far away. He lived in the forest, hunting
and fishing to stay alive. He grew into a strong young
man, and gathered a number of warriors around him.
Years went by, and the name of Temuchin was
spoken with trembling voice: even mature warriors
bowed before the youth's intelligence and
fearlessness.
Everything occurred just as in the legend of At-syz:
the disposed son set off into a foreign land to make a
name for himself. This is indeed what happened.
The youth restored the glory of his father. From the
skull of the man who had poisoned him Temuchin
made a winecup. The Turkis would say from that time
on: "The heart of any matter can be seen, once it is
finished for good."
Only then did Temuchin acquire power over the Altai.
He was dubbed Genghis Khan; that is, the Great
Khan, the Unbending Khan. No other name would
have suited him. The new ruler would seek to restore
an ancient state - the Great Altai.
The first thing he did was put an end to the internal
strife that had rent the people. He put together a code
of laws (they were called yasa, tura and adat) and had
them read out to the people. The "Yasa of Genghis
Khan" punished trickery, treason, failing to come to
the aid of a warrior on the field of battle, and thievery.
The penalty for violating the Yasa was death. This
was how criminals were dealt with in the Ancient
Altai, and this is what Genghis Khan would do, too.
The Turkis would remember their ancestors.
Everyone was at once made just to everyone else: the
deaf began to hear, the blind to see, the mute to speak.
Both ruler and slave now lived according to the Yasa;
internal strife was no longer even thought of. "The
word of my lips shall be my sword," declared Genghis
Khan. Everyone understood exactly what he meant.
The Yasa of Genghis Khan was the Constitution of
the Altai; at least, that's what it would be called today.
No one in the world observed the law as strictly as the
Great Khan himself. Even his enemies couldn't stop
talking, once they saw how just his rule was.
Everyone knew that punishment was unavoidable.
There would be no indulgences - not for anyone.
Genghis Khan's greatest achievement, however, was
not the Yasa. "People of different faiths should live
together in peace," he proclaimed. "We shall once
again be brothers." This lucid thought had not
occurred to any other world leader: everywhere, in
both the West and the East, religion divided nations
and caused them to quarrel with one another. Here, in
contrast, it united them.
It is striking, indeed: Christians and Moslems argued
over whose faith was better, while the Altai Turkis
reminded them of the One and Only God who created
the world, and of His religion. "What does 'better'
mean?" they asked themselves and others. "He is in
Heaven, He sees all, He judges all. The world is
perfect, because it is ruled by the Almighty."
The faith of Tengri promulgated by the Altai also
united its different peoples under the banner of
Genghis Khan and inspired confidence in his
government. People of different religions became
aware that they all had but one Father - the Almighty.
There is evidence that even Englishmen came to serve
the Great Khan. It is possible that they no longer
called themselves Turkis, but they came to fight for
the faith - the pure faith - nevertheless. This fact is
very instructive, for Genghis Khan allowed his
subjects to practise Christianity, Islam or Buddhism as
they chose - only, however, after praying to Tengri.
"One must believe in God in one's soul," he said, "and
victory will be yours."
The Khan understood this truth when he reached the
age of 27. It was then that he reconciled the
quarrelsome Turkis. He was dubbed Sutu-Bogdo, the
"Son of Heaven".
The Turkis had once again become a Nation.

Genghis Khan and his people are sometimes called

Mongols. However, eyewitnesses related that the
Great Khan had blue eyes and a red beard. His father
had green eyes, hence his sobriquet "the Green-eyed"
(Bordjigin). Father and son were both of a distinctly
Kipchak appearance. Who were they in fact?
Certainly not Mongols!
The word Mongol, as the Mongolians themselves
have made clear, first appeared in the 11th century. It
referred not to a specific nation, but to certain tribes of
eastern Turkis - the Tele. Why? Unfortunately, many
details here are not clear. It is possible that, by calling
themselves "Mongols", these tribes wished to
distinguish themselves from the western Turkis of the
Altai, with whom they were constantly at odds. Or,
possibly, the answer lies elsewhere.
In any case, though, it was in 1206 that Genghis Khan
announced: "The people that has allied itself to me
against all others; the people that has armed my
powerful thoughts with their great strength…. I wish
for this people, pure as mountain crystal, to be known
as the Keke-mongol ('Heavenly Fortune')."
It would seem that this was the origin of the word
"Mongol". On the lips of Genghis Khan it meant not a
nation, but "fortune, sent from Heaven above". There
was great portent in this word; it proved to be well-
founded.
Genghis Khan, a Dinlin Turki, was received by his
brothers, the Tele Turkis, and became their ruler….
On this occasion it was said in the Altai that "He has
sold his sword in order gain a name."
This was exactly what Genghis Khan's forebears had
done a thousand years earlier in leaving to serve in
foreign lands. They had gone to the Parthian kings, to
the rulers of Persia, India and Egypt. And in these
places, they, the anonymous sons of the Altai,
founded more than one ruling dynasty. From their
midst had come other noble lords of Asia and Europe.
"I am a wandering warrior-emperor," said Babur, the
future Grand Mogul, in setting off on the long road to
fame and fortune.
We should note that the words "Mongol", "Mongal"
and "Mogul" were fully identical in meaning during
the Middle Ages. It was simply that different peoples
pronounced them differently.

…The first to learn of the might of Genghis Khan

were the Chinese, to whom the Turkis of the Altai had
paid tribute for many centuries. The Chinese Emperor
marvelled at the emissaries of the Great Khan, once
they had arrived at his palace; he was amazed by their
demand, which was as clear as day. The Altai would
itself decide what tribute to pay to the Emperor, that
"most insignificant of people".
Upon hearing this message, the Chinese were struck
dumb.
The Turkis soon returned their powers of speech,
though. Having breached the Great Wall, they
marched into the Celestial Empire and surrounded
ninety cities. They then took all ninety. The huge
Chinese army groaned with its own powerlessness.
The Turkic cavalry smashed it and then quickly
disappeared. Genghis Khan's troops always appeared
unexpectedly - suddenly, whenever the enemy least
suspected it. They would always disappear to whence
they had come.
In small detachments, the invaders moved about the
unfamiliar countryside as if it were their own. How
did they manage this? It is customary to think that the
Chinese invented the compass, but this isn't so. They
had no compasses; only the Turkis did. This helped
them orient themselves in an alien land.
They also could not have navigated without the
wisdom of Genghis Khan. The far-sighted general
knew the cities and roads of China very well, almost
as though he had seen them himself. He made war
with the help of maps, drawn up on his orders. Sitting
in his headquarters inside the Horde, he knew what
lay ahead for hundreds of kilometres.
His troops advanced with confidence; reconnaissance
- another of Genghis Khan's achievements - worked
impeccably. For this reason there really was no war,
as such. The Chinese were dealt blow after blow -
always unexpectedly and always at their most
vulnerable point. The Turkis needed no large army.
Nothing remained for the Emperor's underlings to do,
except to receive Genghis Khan's emissaries
themselves and agree to pay tribute. A Chinese
princess was sent to the Lord of the Altai, along with
3,000 horses, 500 young men and the same number of
girls. Copious amounts of gold and silk were also
paid.
In the conquered part of China, Genghis Khan
appointed his own governor and charged him with
completing the subjugation of the country.

What might one have expected to see in the prostrate

country? Grief, fires and suffering? No. A show of
grandeur and the might of one's army? No, again.
Genghis Khan would not have been the wisest of the
wise if he had not displayed his select nature in a
foreign land as well. God revealed to him everything
that ordinary people failed to notice, even though it
lay in plain view.
It is said that the Chinese gave a fireworks display in
his honour, with firecrackers, skyrockets and other
incendiary devices. Millions of people had seen these
over the centuries and they held little wonder for
them. Genghis Khan, however, marvelled at them. He
did so because he saw not firecrackers, but firearms.
Pyrotechnical weapons, the likes of which no one had
ever known or even imagined. The Chinese held in
their hands the key to the medieval world -
gunpowder - and they didn't even suspect it.
China taught Genghis Khan a great deal. There was
much there that amazed him, from the experience of
Chinese engineers to the skill of ordinary craftsmen.
In China, the foresighted Turki ordered machines for
the taking of fortresses built; again, no one in the
world had ever made anything like them. Of course,
there had been siege engines in the army of the
Roman emperors, but they were children's toys
alongside the creations of Genghis Khan.
"To Knowledge belong the laurels," taught his
ancestors. The Great Khan remembered their words;
he had studied them all his life and was not
embarrassed by it.
His army is often written about as "the wild hordes".
No one consciously speaks of its technological
innovations - for example, about its flaming
projectiles, the forerunners of modern artillery. A
whole book would be needed to tell about Genghis
Khan, the general. He was an artist on the field of
battle, always coming up with something special and
unique. It is said that every horseman was given two
mounts, so that he could alternate them during a
campaign. The army became twice as fast and twice
as tough, and its movements twice as fast and
unexpected.
In the ordinary steppe barb he saw a new kind of
defensive weapon - the iron caltrop. The Turkis used
these to break up enemy attacks and to discourage any
pursuit.
Everything in his army was unique and inimitable,
like in the workshop of a great artist.

After China, the Caliphate was next to rise up in

Genghis Khan's way. The Sultan Muhammad, who
now ruled there, conducted himself far too
unworthily. He simply didn't know whom he was
facing.
The Sultan looked like a slave who had stolen his
master's clothing. In fact, his forebears had once been
slaves of the Seljuks and had turned against them. He,
too, behaved the way they had, and bore himself like a
slave. Insulted by his misdeeds, the Moslems
themselves turned to Genghis Khan for help - to the
"Great Defender of All Turkis", as they wrote in their
petition. They had had enough of the sultan with the
soul of a slave.
Genghis Khan, however, did not want to go to war
against the Moslems. Instead, he suggested a joint
trade along the Silk Road. In 1218 he sent a caravan
laden with valuable merchandise across the Sultan's
lands.
A slave is a slave, however, even in the clothes of a
sultan: he dreams of swindles at night, because he is
continually dishonest with himself. Sultan
Muhammad ordered an attack on the peaceful
caravan. The merchants were killed and the goods
stolen. Genghis Khan, via his emissaries, then
demanded satisfaction. Suspecting the emissaries of
being a threat, however, the Sultan ordered them slain.
Mistrust comes much too hastily when one is dealing
with a high-minded Turki. His response followed
almost immediately.
First, however, Genghis Khan, in accordance with the
ancient traditions of his people, scaled the heights of
the Holy Mountain and prayed to Tengri. For three
days and three nights he waited for an answer. For
three days and three nights not a crumb of bread or a
drop of water passed his lips. Only the wind cooled
his body, slaking his thirst.
When he came down off the mountain, his army knew
what to do. Upon seeing their General, the troops
began chanting "Ten-gri! Ten-gri!" and started to
pray. Faith truly does clear the mind, and this is what
happened on this occasion.
Seven hundred thousand horsemen were gathered
under the banner of the general and his sons - all the
Altai. In Central Asia, two great forces prepared to
meet on the field of battle. Not even in Attila's time
had the world seen such battles: the Altai against the
entire Moslem world.
Head-to-head.
The Battle of Syr-Darya began early in the morning
and ended only after it had become dark. The smug
Sultan lost half his army in this one battle. Only then
did this vain slave understand against whom he had
raised his hand - against an army over which a
guardian spirit had spread his wings.
"The Day of the Wrath of the Lord has arrived," the
Moslems began to say.

Fergana, Otgar, Khojent, Bukhara, Samarkand -

Genghis Khan took virtually all the cities of Central
Asia. His siege engines worked perfectly, and the
gates of the cities were smashed into splinters…. "O
people, the enormity of your sins is obvious. I have
come, the Wrath of the Almighty, the Messenger of
the all-powerful God, His terrible Retribution," said
the Son of Heaven in Bukhara, in the city's main
mosque. All bowed before him, for they saw the truth
in his words.
Heavily laden with booty, the army returned home so
that the sovereign of the Turkis might enjoy life and
his old age. In 1227, the general departed on his final
campaign - the longest one, from which there is no
return.
Tengri-khan received his shining soul.
The Sulde of Genghis Khan

They called his banner Sulde. It was the guardian

spirit of the Turkic people, its "life force" (as the word
is translated). With it they went into battle, and with it
the warriors of the Great Altai were victorious.
The Sulde and the Yasa of Genghis Khan helped the
Turkis in their darkest hours. They were the Voice of
Heaven. They gave the people confidence and
strength. Their presence was felt immediately and by
all. For example: In 1222, when Derbent, Tbilisi and
other cities of the Caucasus were taken by one of
Genghis Khan's reconnaissance elements, Khan Djebe
brought them the news of Genghis's Sulde and Yasa.
The Turkis living there subjected themselves to him,
the Great Khan's emissary, without a fight.
The people understood: he had brought them the
symbols of the holy war begun by the Altai - a war for
the rebirth of the Turkic nation!
Khan Djebe's detachment was not that large. He had
only 25,000 horsemen, but he cut a swathe from
Samarkand to the Dnieper - a feat comparable to the
campaign of Alexander the Great. However, he
accomplished many times more than all of
Alexander's army did.
How to describe all this. Contemporaries did not
understand it and historians have failed to explain it.
Was it boldness? Roguishness? Clever absurdity? All
these are possible, and more. The campaign, though,
was calculated with mathematical precision. It was
simply amazing: the scouting force rode into unknown
territory as if it were the front yard of its own home.
Once again, the compass and maps came in handy.
Once again, the force moved like a ghost - like
messengers from Heaven. Once they had encountered
it and seen its strength, none of the Kipchaks dared lift
their eyes to the banner of Genghis Khan. On bent
knee and with lowered head, all bowed before it.
Those who opposed the Yasa were simply dealt with
according to the law. This is what happened to the
Kipchaks of the Northern Caucasus who drew their
swords against the holy Sulde - and paid the price.
Unfortunately, this campaign of Khan Djebe remains
largely unstudied. Contemporary accounts differ too
widely. One chronicler might have written about it
with joy; another, not so happily - especially if he
were an enemy of the Great Steppe. Such people
would always choke on their bile whenever they
spoke of it or of Genghis Khan himself.
There is one fact, however, that cannot be denied: the
reconnaissance force entered the Khanate of Greater
Bolgaria. It rode in easily, without meeting any
serious opposition, since it followed and proclaimed
everywhere the Yasa of Genghis Khan…. This
incursion was not the invasion of an enemy, as the
horsemen were not advancing across alien territory.
They had come to liberate Turkic lands that had been
exhausted by internal strife and devastated by the
brigandage of the Byzantines.
Greater Bolgaria had been seriously ill since the 9th
century, after the Emperor Leo Isaur - to its eternal
misfortune - aligned it with Byzantium. From the very
start the Greeks "inspired" the Bolgar Turkis with
Christianity. They then subjugated them to their
Greek Church. Afterwards, they began robbing them
along the lines of the Catholics, who had seized power
over all of Western Europe.
It was no accident that one of the Byzantine emperors
had the sobriquet "the Bolgar-fighter". He earned the
name with his victory over Greater Bolgaria. The
most horrible tortures pale before what the conquering
Greeks did there. Fifteen thousand Kipchaks had their
eyes put out, so that they could not see Heaven - and
not pray to Tengri!
It was the Greeks who had set the Bolgar khans
against one another. As they began to assert their
power out in the Great Steppe, the discord among the
Turkis was to their liking. Like an enormous bonfire,
Europe's east was set ablaze by this new kind of
Greek fire.
A tragic misunderstanding enveloped the Great
Steppe.

In the heat of the general conflagration, Khan Bogur

was the first to betray the Turkic people. In 852, he -
known now as King Boris or Bogoris - having
instigated an uprising in Greater Bolgaria, committed
his treason. The rebels decapitated the heads of fifty-
two noble Turkic families. Bogur became king,
dubbing his subjects not Kipchaks, but Slavs .
To consolidate his position, this traitor brought Greek
Christianity to his people in 864-865. He took for
himself the name Michael, in honour of his godfather
-Byzantine Emperor Michael III.
The Greeks helped him, and he helped the Greeks.
The Pope had more than once had a hand in the
"illness" of the Steppe. This was, however, a
completely different story - one that was neither
particularly bloody nor cruel. It is the story of how the
soft voice of the Devil made the other Kipchaks of
Eastern Europe recognize the power of the Pope.
Following their baptism, they became Moravians,
Czechs, Poles, Austrians, Croats, Hungarians…. It is,
though, a tragic and obscure story.
In 882, the Norsemen, the allies of the Byzantines,
captured the northern part of the Khanate of the
Ukraine. Kievan Rus arose - and with it, a new
"illness" of the Steppe. Here, too, the descendants of
Attila became "Slavs" and "Christians" without even
understanding why.

…One can conclude that Genghis Khan's scouts to the

West were not sent by mere chance; it was
foreordained by History. The Great Khan knew
perfectly well what was happening in Europe. "The
Turkis must recover their lost name," he decided.
Khan Djebe and his right-hand man Subutai (Sudebei)
brought the holy Sulde from the Altai to the east of
Europe. It became the medicine for all the illnesses of
the Turkic nation. The Leader ordered his scouts to go
"as far to the west as you can, until you can no longer
find a Turki". Khan Djebe rode only forward, wishing
to resurrect the name and honour of his people. He
needed no foreign lands.
Genghis Khan's scouts made no conquests. They
quietly reconnoitred bivouac sites for the troops who
would soon arrive. From the local Kipchaks they
appointed officials - marshals - who would collect
taxes for the army and exercise authority. Everything
was put down in writing, and everything was placed
under their control. Like skilled healers, they carried
out a mundane but vital task: they treated sick lands.
Those days are now recalled by words which first
appeared then: A marshal was called a yesaul (the title
later given in pre-Revolutionary Russia to a Cossack
captain); a yamshchik (the old Russian word for a
coach driver) was the man who stamped one's
passport at a yama (postal station); and a daroga (the
origin of the Russian word doroga, or "road") was one
responsible for maintaining order and
communications along a highway. A mouse could not
have escaped the attention of Djebe and Subutai. It
was thanks to this that they restored order to
government.

In 1223, the reconnaissance force reached the borders

of the Western world. These borders were established
by the Pope - or, more exactly, by the power of the
Church, which was now fully subject to him.
Kievan Rus had been the eastern bulwark of an
invisible papal empire. It is possible it didn't even
know that by adopting Christianity, it had become a
colony of the Pope. It was here, however, in the
steppes of the Ukraine, that East and West at this time
came together. It was here, therefore, that they would
have to engage in a trial of strength, just as in the days
of Attila.
The conflict between them was unavoidable. Of
course, it started not just on account of the heinous
murder of Genghis Khan's emissaries in Kiev. It was
all much more complicated than that: a clash was
occurring between two completely different world
views - two cultures, two truths. Each was defending
itself and upholding its own way of life.
On May 30, the famous battle with the Russian
princes began. Their army was four times the size of
Khan Djebe and Subutai's detachment, and help had
been sent from Europe. Everything was on their side -
except God.
The battle began unusually. First, Khan Djebe's
element convincingly demonstrated that they didn't
know how to fight. They then pretended to be
frightened and began a hasty retreat. It was all a ruse -
a piece of military art that Genghis Khan had used
before against a superior force. The Russian princes
knew nothing of this, however, and set off in pursuit
of the enemy. Their army was soon spread out over
many dozens of kilometres. Their overwhelming
superiority melted away, like snow in the springtime.
Only at the River Kalka did the Kievan Prince
Mstislav understand what had happened; by this time,
it was much too late. It was at the Kalka that the real
battle began.
Few Russians emerged from the battle alive. Six
princes, seventy boyars and tens of thousands of their
subjects were left on the field. The reconnaissance
force easily crushed the huge army, on which the
Pope had wagered everything in declaring a "Second
Rome" in Europe's east.
The Kipchaks, having forgotten the Altai, learned a
good lesson.
True, they would eventually reply in kind - they
would get revenge for the Kalka. But without the
Russians. The autumn of that year descended coolly
upon the force of Djebe and Subutai after they had
crossed the Itil (Volga).
A response worthy of a Turki - correct?

The Yoke That Never Was

This remarkable campaign still leaves many people

perplexed: beginning with its defeat on the Kalka,
Russia would forever talk about the Tatar-Mongol
yoke. The victory of the Great Steppe did not go down
in History as either a victory or a defeat, but as the
disappearance of the Kipchak nation from the face of
the Earth.
It was simply miraculous.
Allegedly, the Kipchaks, after their great victory,
handed over their towns, villages, fields and pastures
to the defeated Russians and just went someplace else
- where, nobody knows. It is hard to imagine that a
nation of many millions simply vanished - all by
itself, voluntarily, in the wink of an eye and without a
trace. This is, however, precisely what the official
history claims.
Could such a thing have really happened?
Common sense dictates that there weren't enough
Russians in the world to take advantage of such a
princely gift; there weren't enough to populate all the
cities on the Don alone. And the Don area wasn't the
Great Steppe, just one small part of it.
Rus was a hundred times smaller than the Steppe.
So - was the "yoke", along with everything connected
with it, just made up?!

That's exactly right - it was all a lie. We know when it

first appeared: in 1823. We also know where: in St.
Petersburg. And we know with whom: a high school
teacher.
Unfortunately, there are many distortions in the
history of nations. All sorts of them. Generations of
people have grown up on them - people from whom
the truth about their ancestors and about themselves
has been hidden. As it was routine in Western Europe,
so it has been true of Russia since the 18th century.
Everything happened differently, of course.
The campaign of Khan Djebe and Subutai stopped
Genghis Khan like a bucket of cold water thrown in
his face. He understood that he couldn't win a war in
the West - the Kipchaks wouldn't let him! The same
ones who refused to recognise the Sulde and the Yasa.
In 1223, the General's interest in the West had already
died out.
As often happens in life, it was one incident that
settled the matter.
Mangush, a son of the Khan Kotyan, was once out
hunting in the steppe with his falcon. He ran into
Khan Akkubul, a long-time rival of his clan. They
could have just kept going, each on his separate way.
Had this happened, all of world history would have
turned out differently. They didn't keep going, though;
they made for each other. And, in single combat,
Akkubul killed the young man.
No sooner had the sad news reached the Dnieper - the
domains of Khan Kotyan - than he gathered his troops
and set off for the Don, to attack Khan Akkubul.
Kotyan's men had an easy time of it along the Don….
The wounded Akkubul was barely able to escape.
Lacking the strength to retaliate, he dispatched his
brother Ansar to the Altai to ask for help. It was he
who brought the "Mongols" to the Don.
This happened five years after the Battle of the Kalka;
Genghis Khan himself had died…. Thus began the
"Tatar-Mongol yoke", although there was nothing
degrading about it. Ige - the origin of the Russian
word used for "yoke" - meant "master" in Ancient
Turkic. A master had indeed appeared in the Great
Steppe - the Yasa, accompanied by the Sulde.
There was neither the disappearance of a nation nor
the invasion of a "horde of nomads". Nothing of the
sort happened. A judge arrived, one who made them
submit to the Law. The Yasa especially punished
quarrels and dissention among Turkis. The steppe-
dwellers put an end to internecine strife and restored
peace to their house.
The West set them against one another, and Genghis
Khan reconciled them. This is what really happened.

On the face of things, life went on as before - only

now, it was just a bit different.
In recognizing the Yasa, the Steppe remained "their"
principality - that is, the Turkis'. They lived on both
the Don and the Dnieper, and on the Volga (Itil) -
they, and no one else. Forty generations of them had
passed there since the time of Khan Aktash. The
Kipchaks had long since become the native people of
the Steppe.
Once they accepted the ige, they, of course, did not
change externally. Their lands, however, had already
come to be called differently: the Golden Horde, the
Blue Horde, and so on…. A new life had arrived; this,
too, left its mark.
It also left its mark in the new names for the Steppe:
they were chosen according to the colours of its
banner. Horde by now meant "a land that has
recognized the Yasa".

The sons of Genghis Khan divided the huge Altai

power among themselves, carving it up into hordes
headed by a khan. The eldest son, Juchi, got the
western lands - the Golden Horde - but sent his son
Batu there, in his stead.
He chose Sarai as the capital of the Golden Horde -
the richest city in Eastern Europe. Its fountains and
palaces delighted even the Venetians who visited
there. Sarai quickly became a crossroads of trade
routes, one into which goods from both East and West
flowed. Luxury goods of all kinds were sold in its
bazaars. The city was home to skilled artisans whose
craftsmanship astonished the Byzantines. For
example, archaeologists there have found a coffee
service of the finest handiwork, along with exquisite
gold jewellery and coins (these are now kept in St.
Petersburg, in the Hermitage).
The city was famous for its fine library and scholars -
this in the capital of the "bloodthirsty" Batu, a
"savage", as other historians have called him. The
facts, however, prove the opposite.
It is known that Batu himself was called Sainkhan by
his relatives. This was his household name; it meant
"good-spirited". He was, in fact, fat, lazy and
unsophisticated - a layabout who loved luxury and
idleness, and long talks around the dinner table. He
had not the slightest interest in warfare or military
campaigns.
Of course, Batu sometimes had to fight, and he did so
successfully. Not, however, of his own free will.
There were 300,000 horsemen under his banner -
Kipchaks from the Dnieper, Don and Itil. Among
them were "Mongols"; that is, newcomers from the
Altai, of whom there were only 4,000. They had been
sent by Batu's uncle, Khan Oktai. It was he who
appointed Subutai Commanding General of the
Golden Horde. This favourite of Genghis Khan would
also bring glory to the Horde. Subutai was a decisive
man; it was he who forced Batu to act as he thought
necessary. Nothing could make him back off.
At his insistence, the Hordesmen introduced the Yasa
of Genghis Khan to the Ryazan and other Kipchaks in
1237. In 1240 Kiev, which had not adopted the Yasa,
learned the price to be paid for such a crime. Buda
and Pest, Prague, Cracow, Pozega and other Kipchak
cities would soon follow.
Thanks to Subutai, Central Europe, home to many
Turkis, was reminded of its forebears! It was he, not
Batu, who humiliated the Polish, Bohemian, German
and Hungarian knights. He was a great master of
tactics. Europe had seen few generals of his calibre.
The elegance and ease of his great victories were
astonishing.
Subutai waged war strictly according to the covenant
of Genghis Khan. This commanded him to go forward
until he reached the end of the Turkic world. He
would conquer no others; he would reconquer only his
own. This is why, in 1238, on the road to Novgorod,
Batu's troops turned back.
They were not, of course, afraid of anyone. It was
simply that Subutai had seen that there were no Turkis
there, and this meant it was a foreign land. They
imposed tribute on it, then left.

In the 13th century, the Turkic world ended at the

Moskva River. The lands of the Finno-Ugric peoples
stretched on into the north. Foreign lands. Alien lands.
Back then, "to impose tribute" did not mean "to
conquer"; rather, it meant "to form an alliance".
"Tribute" was both an agreement and a tax. It was
neither a bloody nor a fearsome word. Genghis Khan
had ordered that weak allies were to be protected, and
Batu followed his wishes - perhaps a little too
genially.
The Yasa of Genghis Khan obliged him to protect any
city and any country in return for worshipping the
God of Heaven and for recognizing the authority of
the Khan. The Khan demanded nothing more of the
tributary - just the sincere worship of God.
This was the only tribute that Rus paid to the Golden
Horde under Batu.
In return for this the Turkis protected their tributary
from its foreign enemies. For example, the
Principality of Novgorod was protected by Khan
Aliskander. He, the son of a prince of Vladimir and a
Kipchak princess, was raised in Batu's palace and was
foster brother to his son Sartakh. Both boys grew up
listening to the songs of the Steppe.
It was horsemen of the Golden Horde that Khan
Aliskander led in his famous Massacre on the Ice in
1242; it was they who taught the "canine knights" a
lesson they would never forget. Hordesmen and not
Russians, for the Russians at this time had no army;
they sent their young men to serve in the Horde, as
their treaty demanded….
One must conclude that Khan Aliskander and
Alexander Nevsky are two completely different
people, rolled up into one man. In the 18th century,
when the history of Russia was being "adjusted", the
Khan became "Nevsky", the Russian saint. He could
not have been "Nevsky", however, since he did not
take part in the Battle of the Neva. This was fought
between the armies of the Swedes and the Finns and
did not take place on Russian territory.
Batu is also a man with a dual history. He certainly
did help the Church; under his "Tatar-Mongol yoke" it
was the Russian monasteries that benefited most of
all. Their number grew several times over across the
country. "Let those who pray to Heaven, pray to
Heaven," said the Khan.
He freed the clergy from paying taxes and
energetically built new churches; his own son,
Sartakh, was ordained as a deacon. True, Batu himself
never became a Christian, knowing that funeral
services were held in churches; he was deathly afraid
of cadavers. His wife, however, did become a
Christian.
It was apparently no accident that the Pope's agents -
Venetians, this time - spent a great deal of time in
Sarai as Batu's guests. They succeeded in inclining
him towards Christianity - he was the first in the
Horde to doubt the faith of his father and grandfather.
The Khan's actions would soon be akin to treason.

Batu twice betrayed the Horde and twice betrayed the

Turkic world.
This fat clown began to quarrel with the nobility.
They openly despised him for his betrayal of the faith
and for his laziness. At first Batu bore their contempt
in silence. He then complained to his uncle. Finding
no support there, he then began, with all the cruelty of
a weak man, to destroy those whom he found hateful.
Trouble descended on the Horde. Many heads would
roll at the hands of Batu's executioners.
The nobles quickly began to flee the country. Some
rode into the Caucasus to hide from this mad
descendant of Genghis Khan, whom they could not
kill and did not wish to see. Other nobles took refuge
in Western Europe. Still others raced to the north, to
the lands of the Finno-Ugric principalities, which
were not subject to Batu. Tver, Kostroma, Muscovy
and other forest settlements took in the newcomers
from the steppes.
It was from these newly arrived Turkic nobles that the
Russian aristocracy would emerge: the Kipchaks took
Russian names and entered into the service of the
Russian princes. Rus was fabulously enriched. The
Aksakovs, Arakcheevs, Bulgakovs, Godunovs,
Golitsyns, Kutuzovs, Kurakins, Nakhimovs, Ogarevs,
Pushkins, Suvorovs, Turgenevs, Tolstois, Chirikovs,
Usupovs…. Three hundred noble Turkic families took
up residence in Rus.
Three hundred noble families. The flower of the
future aristocracy. The very best, the most worthy.
They had left the Great Steppe and their native Turkic
world, forever. It was from them, and not from
Kievan Rus, that modern Russia came.
They, the Turkic nobles, following the example of
their ancestors, "sold their swords for the sake of a
name" and became the aristocrats of another country.
Even Russia's Romanov tsars were Turkis by blood -
their genealogy can be traced to the clan Kopyl.
Thus, through his caprice, the stubborn Batu created
Russia.

It was due to his heavy hand that the settlement of

Muscovy was transformed from a backwater into the
Principality of Moscow. It would not become famous
for trade or for its craftsmen. It would become famous
for the tribute that its new inhabitants would collect
"from all the Russias".
It would become a policeman serving the Horde.

The Inquisition

Khan Batu's campaign of 1241 frightened Europe

greatly.
The Turkic army had by that time advanced as far as
the borders of Italy, to the Adriatic Sea. It had crushed
the elite Papal troops and was wintering on the
Adriatic, preparing for the campaign against Rome.
The final outcome was merely a question of time.
Batu, of course, was not thinking of the capture of
Rome. It was simply that the Catholic Turkis who had
settled there should be subject to the leaders of their
own people, and not to the Pope. This is what was
believed in the Altai as its warriors were sent
marching into faraway Europe.

It is frightening even to think of what happened that

winter. It was truly the end of the world. There was
panic and turmoil everywhere. The descendants of
Attila awaited the Judgement that was coming from
the East. This was all they spoke of. What was it,
exactly? No one knew for certain. The Catholics were
not afraid of the "Mongols", but of the order they
would bring.
Under the new order, the Pope's presence on this
Earth would have been superfluous….
For example: the inhabitants of Gotland, in Sweden,
were so frightened that they not only stopped fishing
for herring; they quit going to sea at all, for fear of
accidentally leading Batu's army to their homeland.
All the markets were shut down, and no one cared;
indifference reigned all around.
The streets of Europe's cities were filled with people
who were blind with fear and knew neither from
whom nor where they were running. It was as though
they felt themselves guilty of a great crime - but
which one? They waited for Batu to come. Day by
day, they waited. "O God, save us from the wrath of
the Tatars," prayed the Europeans, lifting their eyes to
Heaven. A new expression even appeared in England:
"To catch a Tatar" - that is, "to encounter an
admittedly superior opponent".
No attack, however, was forthcoming.
At the beginning of March 1242, just as the campaign
was about to commence, news reached Batu's
headquarters that his favourite uncle, Khan Oktai, had
died in the Altai. Batu seemed to become an entirely
different person: lost and rushing about in tears, he
broke down completely. He didn't want to hear
anything about any campaign.
His commanding general was in a most difficult
position: without the Khan, he could neither withdraw
nor go forward. The army, ripe for a decisive victory,
stood at a crossroads. On his knees Batu tearfully
begged Subutai to let him go. There was no longer
anything left to entice the grief-stricken Khan - not
even the prospect of a quick victory.
He eventually rode off, casting his army to the whims
of fate.
In order to deceive the enemy, Commanding General
Subutai ordered his reconnaissance force to advance,
demonstrating to the Europeans that his intentions
were serious. The scouts sacked the cities they cities
they encountered - in a word, they acted firmly and
decisively.
Meanwhile, the army slowly - in order to avoid any
suspicion that they were about to flee - began to
withdraw. Subutai was a master at deception. He
declared, for example, that the Altai forgave the
European Kipchaks who had betrayed the faith of the
God of Heaven.
Only then did Europe heave a sigh of relief.

Pope Innocent IV then got down to work. He had

come up with a daring plan: he decided to turn his
enemies into allies.
This Pope was reputed to be a great lawyer and a
shrewd politician. His forbears were Kipchaks -
Langobards - and it was from them, and not from the
Romans, that he found support; the Pope came from a
long line of foreign knights. In 1245, he sent his
personal emissary, the monk Giovanni del Plano
Carpini, to the Altai - to the capital of the "Mongol"
Empire, the city of Karakorum. The aim of the visit
was of the most peaceful sort: the Pope, agreeing to
recognize Tengri, proposed that he and the Turkis
form an alliance to wage war against the Moslems.
It was a clever political move - clever, and
unexpected. He sought not war, but an alliance. So
that the Altai and the West might stand shoulder-to-
shoulder against the Moslem East, and Europe would
be saved from another invasion by the Turkis…. It
was all very well thought out.
The emissary was accompanied by another monk, the
tolmach (Turkic translator) Benedict the Pole. They
rode across the Great Steppe and saw it with their own
eyes - the eyes of spies. Their intelligence-gathering
was excellent. They wrote out a full report to the
Pope, and then a book. They were the first Catholics
to visit the Altai, and to see Eden.
Then, in 1253, yet another Papal spy travelled there:
Guillaume de Rubrouk.

In the 13th century the Church came up with a plan

that had been suggested to them by the Yasa of
Genghis Khan. It was a brilliant plan, one which they
called Inquisition. Its essence was clear and simple: in
order to avoid another attack from the Golden Horde,
it was necessary to erase forever all traces of the
Kipchaks' presence in Europe. It would have to be
done in such a way that absolutely nothing of them
remained - but how?
Camouflage! The Yasa of Genghis Khan bound one
not to make war on Europe or Europeans, but only on
those Turkis who lived there. "Go forth until you can
no longer find a Turki," it commanded. Any farther,
and one had to turn back.
This is why Batu did not march on Byzantium. Turkic
speech could no longer be heard there - but it could in
Western Europe!
The Pope's henchmen once again had the advantage.

They began talking about the Inquisition at the

Church Council held in Toulouse in 1229, after the
Russian defeat on the Kalka. It was discussed again in
Lyons in 1245, following Batu's European campaign.
The idea was first mooted by the monk Dominic, who
proposed creating yet another order - the strongest and
most terrible of all. So that it might destroy everything
Turkic; so that civil courts would be subordinate to it;
so that it could seek out the guilty and investigate
them itself, it would be, in a word, both judge and
executioner.
This is how the Dominican Order was set up. Fierce
hounds, sniffing out heresy, were emblazoned on its
coat of arms. Everything Turkic was dubbed heresy.
Of course, not everyone was happy with this decision.
Some Catholics did not want to forget the Turkic
language. They did not wish to "camouflage" their
native customs. They became the first victims of the
Inquisition. They were declared heretics.
Incidentally, the word heretic is of Turkic origin - yes,
it, too. The Catholic Turkis hadn't come up with
anything new; this was what one who rejected the
views of the Church was called. In Turkic, eres meant
"that which must be repudiated". With the help of the
Inquisition, the Catholics "camouflaged" Europe as
well.
As human beings, it is not difficult to understand
them. People now felt that they were Europeans, and
not Turkis. The Mongols were their brothers; with a
sixth sense, perhaps, they may have realised this.
Primarily, though, they saw in them people of a
different culture - one that was not European. This
now meant they were both alien and hostile. Alien
brothers…. They were as different as a prince and a
pauper.
Each, however, thought that he was the prince.
It turns out that in order to be a single people, it isn't
enough to speak one language and to share the same
roots. A common culture is needed, and there was
none; the Great Steppe had for centuries been
dissolving. In the West, it was washed away
completely. It became part of Europe. Only the
heretics, those islands in an ocean of neglect, hinted at
the past - at the Turkis.
What was that the heretics did not accept? What were
they looking for? What did they have to hold onto?
Their communities numbered in the dozens in
medieval Europe: the Bogomils, the Cathari, the
Albigensians, the Oliviti, the Eukhiti, the
Joachimites…. Some were reputed to be famous and
to have many members; others were not. They had
one thing in common, however: they all spoke out
against the Church. Or, more exactly, against the
darkness that was clouding the skies of Europe.
They explained the creation of the world their own
way; believing in the transmigration of souls, they
stubbornly refused to acknowledge that Christ was on
the same order of divinity as God. They believed that
there is but one God, and that He is in Heaven. They
did not deny the religion of Europe. They merely
pointed to the vices that the Church's people had
brought to the world.
They were outraged that priests, as they called
themselves "servants of God", were swimming in
luxury and dying from gluttony, while the people who
listened to their preaching lived in poverty.
It is apparent that these heretics were not really such
stupid people. They trusted God with the secrets of
their confessions without letting the Pope's servants
delve too deeply into their souls. In this way, of
course, they also irritated the Church.
In the south of France and in northern Italy (which, to
use a monks' expression, were "swarming with
heretics"), the Cathari became quite notorious. They
were once again called Bolgars, Khazars and even
Langobards. They, the descendants of foreign
noblemen, kept alive the faith of Tengri with their
own Church.
They were supported in Flanders and in other
countries where there lived Turkis who remembered
Tengri.
The Cathari, for example, believed that the Catholics'
ceremonies were excessively rich and sumptuous.
"God loves modesty," they insisted. These words, too,
irritated the Church - which, having grown wealthy,
now loved riches, satiety and dissipation.
It is curious that the teachings about God which the
Cathari preached in the castles of French gentles
coincided surprisingly with those that could be found
in the Altai or among the northern Buddhists…. It was
the philosophy of the East.
This is why the Church branded heretics as stupid.

It was no accident that the Cathari were the first to

suffer at the hands of the Inquisition. In 1229 they
were dealt a palpable blow: they were attacked by
crusaders.
A great deal of blood then flowed in the lands of
Count Raymond of Toulouse. The Kipchaks'
descendants fought to their last breath, but the forces
were too unequal…. "Drive him and his allies from
their castles," cried the Pope. "Confiscate their lands
and let true Catholics occupy the heretics' domains."
In these words lies the answer to the Inquisition's
other mysteries.
"Occupy the heretics' domains." The Church never
forgot this in implementing its policies - including the
Inquisition.
How did heretics differ from Catholics in the depth of
their passions? This is easy to answer. The Papal
Legate Arnold Amalrik, for example, advised: "Kill
them all, and let God sort them out."
True plunder reigned in the 13th century.
…It looks as though other Europeans secretly wished
for the arrival of the Turkic army. They knew of the
Yasa of Genghis Khan, and through their "heresy" let
their cousins in the Altai know about them. This
assertion may seem arguable, but it is not beyond the
realm of possibility. The Turkic nation could not have
died peacefully: it fought back and sought new
strength in each new generation. It was silenced
slowly: the Inquisitors "eliminated people through
death". They carried out their work well.
However, the people did not, of course, sit by
passively; they responded in kind. A long and cruel
battle was waged - a battle of life and death. In
France, Switzerland, Bohemia and Moravia, Hungary,
Poland, England, Germany and Bulgaria…. History
has preserved traces of it everywhere.

The courts made public the will of the Inquisition.

The accused sometimes did not know what he was
being accused of or who the witness to the crime was.
He was tortured horribly; then, on the town square, to
the sound of trumpets and the roar of the crowd, his
sentence would be read out. There was neither a trial
nor an investigation. The people were terrified. They
were instilled with fear, so that they would never
oppose a decision of the Church. So that they would
shrink, as if from a blow, at each Turkic word they
heard.
There were three possible sentences: "reconciliation",
"loss of property" and "prison". Those who persisted
in their heresy were burned alive at the stake.
Both people and books were burned. Whole libraries
in Turkic disappeared forever in the bonfires of the
Inquisition. For the French, English, Germans, Swiss,
and other peoples this was their own "household
language"; these were their household books. They
were the first to be burned.
Meanwhile, other valuable books were hidden in the
Church's libraries. So that no one would in the future
ever suspect they existed…. By the Will of Heaven,
something was thus preserved. In addition, certain
Turkic books and documents remain intact in secular
archives; the Inquisitors simply lost track of them.
Judging by papers that have survived entirely by
accident, the counts Fugger from the city of Augsburg
(next to Munich), still wrote and spoke Turkic in the
years1553-1555. This is also mentioned in a work by
the Hungarian historian Telegda on the Kipchaks of
Europe and their language - a book that came out in
1598.
No, this was not even a book; it was the lament of a
man whose Homeland had died.

The Descendants of Genghis Khan

Historians have long given their attention to the fact

that ancient manuscripts in Europe have survived in
fragments, as though someone consciously ripped out
pages of Time - or poured paint all over them, so that
they could no longer be read. Antiquity left behind far
more many documents than the period that followed
the collapse of Rome. This is why this era was called
the Dark Ages.
Only in the 15th and 16th centuries did these
documents appear in their full volume. What did
people once again learn how to read and write? Which
papers disappeared completely?
All those that were written in Turkic.
They were burned, for they contained everything the
Church wanted to conceal. The loss of historical
documents and their forgery are also traces left behind
by the Inquisition - its tragic result.
The heretics were destroyed by Dominican monks,
documents by the Jesuits - the members of the Society
of Jesus. This most frightening Catholic organization
was feared even by the Pope. It was subject to no one.
Its principle was: "The goal justifies the means."
The Jesuit Order was founded in 1534 by the Kipchak
Ignatius of Loyola, in order to give the Pope's servants
the best education possible. It was called the Order of
Scholars. Only educated men were admitted; they
conducted their courts and their policies with the help
of science.
They soon created their own secret empire in Western
Europe, taking the science and education in all
Catholic countries into their own hands. The Jesuits
opened schools, seminaries, and academies where
young men - their adherents - were taught. From
century to century, they painstakingly built up a new
world order - one in which the West and Catholicism
stood at the centre.
Is it really so surprising that Turkic Europe is now
forgotten?
This "Order of Scholars" ransacked the archives and
purged them, then stole and hid the testimony of the
past. Until now there is a library in the Vatican called
the Jesuit Library. It is only for members of the Order.
In it are kept priceless papers and books - those, at
least, that didn't wind up in the bonfires of the
Inquisition. They weren't burned; they were preserved
so that the Jesuits alone could know the truth about
the Dark Ages - and how best to cover it up.
It is, after all, an order of scholars.
The Jesuits translated some of the old Turkic books
into Latin. They are now well-known as books by
Latin authors of the Dark and Middle Ages. The
history of the world was rewritten by the Jesuits.
Everything has been shaken up and stood on its head.
Not even the Lives of the Saints escaped the hand of
the revisor.
The Order has been operating for almost 500 years
now. It has eaten away at the truth the way a worm
eats holes in wood. The figures tell something about
its scale: The Society has 35,000 members, and issues
around 1,000 newspapers and magazines, with a total
circulation of 150,000,000 copies, in 50 different
languages. The Order runs 33 universities and more
than 200 of its own schools. This giant empire
controls the conscience of the West.
Like air, the Jesuits are everywhere. Like air, they are
invisible.
Papal emissaries first appeared in Moscow thanks to
Ivan the Terrible, who opened its doors to them. With
their help, the Prince of Moscow prepared for war
against the Great Steppe. The Altai Empire of
Genghis Khan was doomed. No one in the history of
the world has ever withstood the onslaught of the
Pope's invisible army.

"If weak men are commanded by one who is

courageous, then they all will be courageous."
Genghis khan was courageous; he gathered the
"weak", and gave the world the Altai Empire. The
General, however, did not leave behind a worthy
successor, and the Pope's agents took advantage of
this.
The great Genghis Khan did not mention his sons on
his death-bed. "Listen to little Khubilai; his words are
full of wisdom." This was the last phrase to come
from his dying lips.
Genghis Khan's grandson, Khubilai (also spelled
Kublai or Kubla), completed his grandfather's triumph
in China; he discovered the islands of Indonesia, and
stood right next door to Australia. He became Lord of
the Far East. There was nothing left for the Chinese
Emperor to do but to thrust a dagger into his heart and
cry, "Our gods are powerless!" Everyone was
captivated by the victories of the young Khubilai.
They can, of course, be called by different names.
Not, however, "the Conquest of China", since at that
time there was no China. There were only provinces
that waged ruthless war with one another. The Turkis
welded them into a unified country. According to
legend, it was they who named China China, or
"fenced off" - a reference to the Great Wall.
Genghis Khan and his descendants thought to rebuild
the medieval world in their own way. They wanted to
build; what Attila began, Genghis Khan would
continue.
Another grandson of Genghis Khan, Hulagu (also
spelled Hulegu), completed his grandfather's work in
the Near East. He conquered no cities either, but
eradicated the sects that were corrupting Islam. He
walked the lands of the Caliphate as the grandson of
Genghis Khan - the great defender of the Faith and of
the Turkis.
In 1258, Hulagu took Baghdad, Damascus, and other
cities. However, he did not even touch either Mecca
or Medina; they were holy cities.

Did everything turn out all right for the Turkic world?
Hardly. The rays of hope flared up, then died out. Its
woes returned with Batu. There is even a saying:
"After a rise comes a fall; after a high place, one that
is low." This is how life is. Genghis Khan was a
genius; his descendants were not. They betrayed the
faith of their fathers and lost everything.
Batu dreamed of becoming Orthodox; his brother
Berke, of becoming a Moslem. Khubilai wanted to be
a Buddhist; Mamai, a Catholic. Their enemies
corrupted their souls. The great victories of Genghis
Khan ended up completely negated. Moreover, the
Turkis themselves forgot about them.
One cannot doubt God. Doubt is death.
Faith in the Golden Horde was shaken just a bit, and
its unity disappeared. It was at that moment that the
nation died, all by itself. No one actually defeated it,
no one pushed it over a precipice.
This is how the Horde fell in China:
Khubilai became a Buddhist in his old age, and took
the Chinese name Shu-tsu. In Chinese, his dynasty
was called the Yuan. Khubilai did not retain even the
spirit of the Turkis in China: he made Genghis Khan a
Chinese national hero.
The Chinese now revere their beloved Khubilai. They
remember how he sowed the backyard of his palace
with sage-brush from the steppe. And, pointing at a
tiny meadow that had appeared between two stone
walls, he told his children in Chinese, "This is the
grass of humility. As you look at it, remember your
ancestors."
In the Turkic world, the Dark Ages ended with
humility.

***

When you don't know the key to a cipher, a text

becomes a coded message. This is how the Jesuits
wrote the history of Europe and Asia - according to
the rules of cryptography. The period following the
collapse of Rome is here fore now referred to as the
Dark Ages. The Great Migration of the Peoples is
now forgotten. Turkic culture, which came to Europe
along with Attila to take the place of Roman culture,
is forgotten. It may be forgotten, but everything
remains in clear view.
Our book demonstrates this.
Absolutely nothing has been added by our artist to the
illustrations. Everything I have chosen to show is
well-known and documented. How else can one throw
light on the secrets that are hidden in the gloom of the
Dark Ages?
We have decided that "The light of truth is the best
key to a cipher!"

List of Illustrations and Commentary

Pages 8 and 11
Michel Colombe, "St. George and the Dragon."
Marble relief. 1508-1509. Louvre, Paris. The theme of
St. George's battle with the dragon entered the art of
Western Europe only around the 13th century, when,
by will of the Church, St. George became the patron
saint of knighthood. Earlier, he was not portrayed as a
mounted dragon-slayer.

Page 9
Mounted archer. Decoration from a saddle. Bronze.
7th-8th centuries. Khakassia.

Page 10
Horseman. Detail from an altar. Bronze. 4th-2nd
centuries BC. Kazakhstan.

Pages 12-13
Portrait of a man. Vessel from Kafyr-Kaly. Ceramic.
6th century. Uzbekistan.

Phidias and his Pupils. Sculpture from the Parthenon.

Marble. 5th century BC.
British Museum, London

Pages 14-15
Attacking Romans (tracing). Column of Marcus
Aurelius. Rome. Note the Romans' clothing and
weapons, their helmets, and their military tactics.
These were uniquely theirs.
Battle between steppe dwellers and the Romans.
Fragment from a relief on Trajan's Column. Rome.
Once again, the two armies could be distinguished by
their military garb, as the artist showed.

Pages 16-17
Defeated Britons. Relief from Antonine's Wall (built
during the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius in
Scotland. 2nd century. Here, too, the clothing of the
vanquished says a great deal.

"Julius Caesar." Green shale. Berlin. Antiquities

Collection.

Hadrian's Wall - the most northern outpost of the

Great Roman Empire. 2nd century. Great Britain.

Pages 18-19
Sculpture from the St. Nicholas Catholic Church in
Prague. The Christian Archbishop Cyril is slaying
Hypathia, the woman scholar, for her adherence to
ancient science and paganism.

Pages 20-21
Scenes from circus performance. Fragment from a
diptych. 5th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Theatre of Marcellus in Rome (1st century BC).

Drawing. 15th century.

Pages 22-23
Ancient door-handle hammer from Italy. 15th century.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Such door-handles could
be found in virtually every Turkic home in the
Ancient Altai. They remain unchanged to the present
day.

Statue of the Emperor from Barletta. Fragment.

Bronze. 4th century.

Pages 24-25
Falcon-shaped clasp. 5th century. German National
Museum, Nuremburg. An example of the jewellery
produced in the Great Steppe. Such works have often
been found in the burial mounds of the Don and the
Dnieper, where the secrets of jewellery-making were
mastered. Such finds from Ukraine and Russia are
now kept in a special vault in the Hermitage; this
particular clasp was found in Italy.

Snake-shaped bracelet. Bronze. 4th century. Museum

of Primitive Art, Berlin.

Bust of the Emperor Julian. Chalcedon. 4th century.

Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 26-27
Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, interior
view. 5th century.

Fragment of a find from the catacombs of Rome.

Early Christian and Byzantine Collection, Berlin.
These European cult items are the only ones that
relate to early Christianity. There were no crosses, no
icons, and no finds of any other kind in the
catacombs. Scholars have proved that the paintings on
the walls of the catacombs were done by medieval
monks. "Catacomb Christianity" began with Pope
Damasus in the 4th century.

Figure of John the Baptist from Basel. Silver with

gilded features. 15th century. Hermitage, St.
Petersburg.

Pages 28-29
"The Port in Ravenna." Mosaic from the Basilica of
Sant' Apollinare in Classe in Ravenna. 6th century.
This port was built by the Turkis for the Empire's new
capital. The city, surrounded by mountains and
marshes, had no access to dry land. Its road to the
outside world began just outside gates to the sea.

"The Good Shepherd." Fragment from a mosaic inside

the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. 5th
century. This long-tailed breed of sheep was common
in the Great Steppe. Right down to the present day,
the Turkis consider it a special and very ancient breed.
Before the coming of the Turkis, goats were kept in
Europe.

Pages 30-31
Baptistery in Ravenna, built by Turkic craftsmen in
the 5th century. This is where those local inhabitants
and Kipchaks who wanted to become Christians were
baptized. This was done according to Altaic tradition,
with each person being submerged three times.

Painting of the Apostle Peter. 4th century. Hermitage,

St. Petersburg.

Pages 32-33
Visored helmet. British Museum, London. Its owner
is now unknown. There are various opinions on this
point, except the Turkic. However, it is obviously the
helmet of a knight in the service of the Khan (a
gentile) - or, more likely, of the Khan himself.

Carcassonne city walls and towers. 12th-14th

centuries. France.

Pages 34-35
Piero della Francesca. Fragment from a fresco inside
the Church of San Francesco in Arezzo. 15th century.

Pages 36-37
Baltea of Aosta. Detail. 2nd century.

Horse's helmet. From a cache found in Bavaria. 3rd-

4th centuries. Note the snake talismans, and the
warrior in Roman armour. Obviously, this was the
helmet of a warhorse whose master was a Kipchak in
the service of Rome. The blending of "steppe" and
"Roman" elements was characteristic of that era.
Thus, the first King of the Franks, Childeric (d. 482),
was interred, like a steppe dweller, in a burial mound,
along with his weapons and his richly accoutred
warhorse.

Pages 38-39
Panorama of Hradcany Castle in Prague - a typical
example of Medieval Gothic.

Pages 40-41
Fragment from the Diptych of Areobind. Ivory. 506.
Judging by the symbolism, the descendants of the first
generation of Latin Turkis are depicted here. This is
the way they looked: not yet Europeans, but no longer
steppe dwellers.

Page 43
Detail from a medieval church, built in the Gothic
style. Turkic temple architecture was the basis for the
Christian style of building; many of Europe's
architectural masterpieces are executed in this mode.
These include Cologne Cathedral in Germany,
Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris, the Houses of
Parliament in Brussels, and Westminster Abbey in
England.

Facade of the Church of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in

Poitiers.

Pages 44-45
Bas-relief. 5th century. Egypt. Two guardian spirits
with the wreath and cross of Tengri - which by this
time had already become a symbol of Near Eastern
culture.

Sitting figure. 2nd millennium BC. British Museum,

London. The text on this statue is engraved in
hieroglyphs, as writing was done on the banks of the
Nile. There is not even the slightest resemblance to
modern-day Arabic script.

Stone capital from the town of Sudagylan. 5th-6th

centuries. Azerbaijan. This Runic script is called
Albanian, but no one has been able to read it in that
language. Evidently, Turkic speech has not been
researched at all.

Sample of a Coptic documentary letter. Papyrus. 8th

century.

Page 47
The world's oldest icon. 4th century. Egypt. It is
commonly thought that Christ and St. Mena are
depicted here; it is to the latter that the Ancient Turkic
word apa (priest) refers. However, the first depictions
of Christ appeared only in the 7th century, after the
Council in Trullo. Consequently, Bishop Mena
accepted Christianity not from the hand of Christ but
from that of Tengri, whose image graced all the
world's icons in the Dark Ages.
Sample of a Coptic letter. Fragment of a manuscript
from Nag Hammadi. Papyrus. 4th century. These
"characters" were written by an unskilled hand;
certain of them are reminiscent of runes. Obviously,
the Egyptians were at this time just beginning to
master the new way of writing, and the language of
the new faith.

Pages 48-49
Archbishop Cyril's Dispute with a Pagan. Passage
from an unknown work. Limestone fragment. 7th
century. Egyptian Collection and Papyruses, Berlin.
Yet another example of very expressive Coptic letters.

Lion tearing a man apart. Window decoration of the

Worms Cathedral. 12th century.

Dragon-shaped lamp from Byzantium. Bronze. 4th

century.

Pages 50-51
"SS. Anthony and Paul." Coptic icon. Fragment. 17th
century. The traditions of Coptic icon painting have
not changed for centuries. It is instructive that the
episode this icon depicts is one from the period of
Egypt's baptism. Nothing had changed in a thousand
years.

Basket with sheep heads and peacocks. Column

capital found in Egypt. 8th century. Symbols which
tell a great deal, since early Islam was "Egyptian
Christianty". The Oguz were the first to separate the
Christians and the Moslems. They devised the holiday
of Kurban-bairam - the holy day when a lamb is
brought to be sacrificed to Allah. There would seem
to be nothing unusual about this; in essence, however,
it marked the break with Christianity, since the lamb
personified the Agnes Dei - Christ. Only after a
sacrifice could a man call himself a pure Moslem: his
Christian past was gone forever, along with the
sacrificed Lamb. Kurban-bairam has been the main
holiday of Islam ever since.

Pages 52-53
Mary with the Infant. Fragment of a sculpture in an
Austrian church. 16th century.

Unknown artist of Pisa. "Madonna with the Infant on

a Throne". 13th century. Pushkin Museum of Fine
Arts, Moscow. This Italian artist clearly followed the
rules of Turkic icon painting: the type of the face, an
especially fine nose, and eyes with an Eastern cast.
This is inarguably Umai. In the West, the Inquisition
changed everything. Umai was renamed the Madonna,
and a new face was created for her; the Church
ordered her whole image to be reinterpreted. This was
preceded by a long intra-Church dispute.

Pages 54-55
Pietro Perugino, "Madonna with the Infant." 16th
century. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. An
example of the "new" icon art: an Infant with neither a
halo nor the sign of Tengri, and a Madonna with other
facial features. Earlier, the sign of Tengri over the
Infant signified that he was the "God's gift".
Everything given by the Almighty was considered by
the Turkis to be "God's gift". The Infant in the arms of
Umai was also a symbol of giving. Knowing about
these changes, one can understand the sense of what,
at first glance, appears to be the senseless arguments
at the Ephesus and other church councils: when
talking about Umai, the Christians argued over what
she should be called, and how she should be related to
Christ.

Coptic cloth. Fragment. 4th-5th centuries.

Miniature from "The Alexandria World Chronicle."

Papyrus. 7th century.

Page 56
Hassock with Christian symbols. Wood. 587. Saint-
Benoit-sur-Loire. Saint Croix Abbey, near Poitiers.

Pages 58-59
St. Benedict of Nursia. Miniature from the
Martyrology at the Abbey of the Holy Sepulchre,
Cambrai. Cheekbones, the cast of one's eyes, the type
of one's face, and the proportions of one's body can
tell a great deal about a person. That Benedict of
Nursia came from Turkic stock is obvious. The Saint's
face and deeds make this clear.

"A Saxon Beauty." Detail from the Cathedral of

Meissen. Stone. 1357. The Beauty also has a Turkic
face. Such faces could be seen on nearly every street
there.

"The Devil Tempting St. Benedict." Stone. 12th

century. Cathedral of St. Madeleine at Vezelay,
Burgundy.

Page 60
"Pilgrims." Drawing from "The Life of St. Jadwiga."
19th-century lithograph.

Page 62
The chateau at Azay-le-Rideau on the Indre River,
France. Swans were the castle's guardian spirits.
Every home, every clan had its own protector keeping
watch over it. This was the origin of yet another
Kipchak name - the Kuman, or "Swan People", as
they were called in Europe.

Monastic scribe. Miniature. 15th century.

Pages 64-65
Writing angel. 1210. In Ancient Greece and Rome,
poets were unacquainted with rhythm; their poems
were non-rhythmic. The tradition of rhyming lines
came to Europe from the Altai. From ancient times,
the Turkis were masters of the word; they knew how
to make lines rhyme at the beginning, the middle, or
the end of a poem. Their poems were simply
marvellous. A Kipchak who converted to Christianity,
Ambrosius (Ambrose) Mediolanensis (d. 397), has
been called Europe's first poet. He wrote hymns to
order for the Church.

Iron crown of the Langobards. Monza Treasury. This

Turkic crown is the oldest in Europe. It bears the cross
of Tengri, and was made in the Kumaniya (The Swan
Area) lands of the Don. The crown was ordered by the
Roman Theodolina, the widow of Authari, King of the
Langobards. In 774, it was placed on the head of
Charles the Great, the founder of France; it was at this
time that the word "king" (derived in many European
languages from Charles, or "Karl") first appeared. (It
too has Turkic roots.) In 1805, the crown was given to
Napoleon as a present. It is now kept in Italy.

Chess pieces. Walrus tusk. 12th century. British

Museum, London. It would seem that everyone knows
about chess, and that it came from India. The Indians,
however, are of another opinion. It is played there
only in the north, where the Turkis who came from
the Altai lived. The inhabitants of medieval Medina
had this to say: "Chess was invented by the
barbarians", that is, the Turkis.

Pages 66-67
Spears. 16th to 18th centuries. Germany.
Double stairway, executed in the Gothic style. 1499.
Austria.
Monastic scribe. Miniature. 16th century.

Pages 68-69
Feast of a count during the Carolingian Period (8th to
10th centuries). 19th-century reconstruction.

Castle of the counts of Flanders in Ghent. 12th to 13th

centuries.

Portrait of a man. Water vessel from Hungary.

Bronze. 12th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Page 71
Tombstone. Cathedral in Frankfurt-am-Main. Stone.
14th century. A mixed marriage is about to take place:
the groom is a Kipchak in European dress, but his
beard has been divided into two, in the Eastern
manner. His bride wears a brooch - an heirloom of his
clan.

Jewellery from the Prokhorovka necropolis. 5th

century BC. Kazakhstan. Exactly the same kind of
brooch, with exactly the same ornamentation, is
featured above. The ornament was once the sign of a
clan, its tamga.

Pages 72-73
Horsemen and archers on board a ship. Fragment of
embroidery from the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century.
Bayeux Cathedral. The famous Bayeux Tapestry is
embroidered with many different threads. It contains
72 scenes from the Norman Conquest of England in
1066. The Tapestry was ordered by Queen Matilda,
the wife of William the Conqueror, to commemorate
the campaign. Under Napoleon, the Tapestry was
exhibited in Paris in 1803, as both a work of art and a
historical document. It is now kept in Bayeux.

Head of a dragon. Carved wood. 9th century.

Scandinavia.

Pages 74-75
Pair of lovers. From a medieval miniature. 13th
century. Paris.

Hunting with a bird of prey in Europe. It is instructive

that Europe learned about hunting with birds of prey
from the Turkis. This was the preserve of royalty, one
which the native Europeans called "a wild
entertainment of the barbarians". The Russian word
for falcon (sokol) in Turkic means "to point one's
hand"; the Russian word for golden eagle (berkut) in
Turkic means "to fetch one's prey". Even members of
the Turkic clergy happily made time for this
exhilarating pastime.

Pages 76-77
Embarkation of troops. Fragment of embroidery from
the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century. Bayeux Cathedral.

Head of a dragon. Ornament from a Viking ship.

Carved oak. 800. British Museum, London. The
dragon was the guardian spirit of the Norsemen, their
protector. This is why their ships were often adorned
with the head of a dragon. It was from this that the
well-known sobriquet of the Scandinavians - the
Goths - was derived: in Turkic, goty meant "dragon"
or "lizard". It was the symbol of the Altai, and of all
Central Asia.

Pages 78-79
Snow leopard. Miniature from the "Bestiary".
Parchment. 12th century. Oxford. How could the
English have known about the Altai leopard? How
could they have made it their guardian spirit? This is
clearly one of the mysteries of History - or is it?

The King attends a session of the English Parliament.

Miniature from a medieval manuscript. There are two
surprising details here: the bags stuffed with wool on
which the parliamentarians sit, and the King's crown.
The former were not just bags, but attributes of power
in medieval England and the Great Steppe. The same
is true of the crown. Prior to the Turkis' arrival in
Europe, there were no such things. The word "crown"
is of Turkic origin: it is derived from qori, the
imperative of "to protect"; the object itself was one of
the ancient symbols of the East - a sign blessed by
God. A khan's crown would be placed on his head by
a high priest, and from that moment on, he would be
referred to as Czar. A different word was used in
Europe - "king", derived from the Turkic name of
Charles ("Karl") the Great; or, more exactly, from his
household name.

Coin of Henry I, King of England from 1100. As the

famous Encyclopaedia Britannica says, the English
monetary system began with the silver penny of
Offa…. Who in the world was this Offa? A foreign
ruler, one of the Anglo-Saxons - that is, a Turki. The
Encyclopaedia goes on to say that Offa (757-796)
ordered the same kind of money to be minted as the
Arab Caliph Mansur had. This is curious indeed. It is
further known that Caliph Mansur had borrowed the
monetary system of the Turkis. He himself said that
he couldn't come up with a better one. Such coins as
were minted under Offa spread across Turkic Europe,
and were called markus, as among the Arabs, or
simply marks. The Burgundians, having become
"Franks", later (in 1799) named their money this as
well. It is from these that the Deutschmark and the
franc came.

Pages 80-81
Hunting with a golden eagle in Kyrgyzstan.

Mythical animal. Decoration on a piece of headwear

from an Issyk burial mound. Gold. 5th-4th centuries
BC. Kazakhstan.

Dervish serves a prince the ball for a game of polo.

Ancient miniature from Arifi's manuscript "Ball and
Mallet". 16th century. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin State
Public Library, St. Petersburg. Polo, played with a
mallet, was well-known in the Ancient Altai, and was
called chavgan. As an old Turkic saying goes, "A man
must know how to wield a mallet and shoot accurately
with a bow and arrow." Another saying teaches:
"When playing polo, don't bet your shirt - you might
lose it." The game was considered the ultimate sport.

Pages 82-83
Lustrous tiles from Kashan. Some of these have been
dated to 1267. Louvre, Paris.

Order of St. George. There were such orders in the

Great Steppe well before Attila. Archaeologists have
found them many times in burial mounds. This was
the sign of Tengri. It was from this that the word
"order" was derived: in Turkic, it meant "handed
down from above". A fair question to ask is: Just how
nondescript could Turkic culture have been if even the
Pope's highest award came from the Turkis?

Woman by a tree. Glazed tile. 12th-13th centuries.

Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.

Pages 84-85
Mausoleum at the Mameluk cemetery near Cairo.
15th-16th centuries. Turkic architecture acquired a
new face in the East, too. There were the same domes
and the same octagons, but the details were already
different from those in Europe and in the Great
Steppe. The symbolism was also different.

Kalyan minaret in Bukhara. 1127.

Page 87
Mohammed's ascension into Heaven. Miniature from
Jami's manuscript Yusuf and Zulaikha. 16th century.
Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences Institute of Oriental
Studies, Tashkent.

Shakh Mosque in Isfakhan. Interior view. 17th

century.

Pages 88-89
Map of the Maverannakhr ("that which lies beyond
the river", that is, beyond the Amu-Darya) area.
Compiled in the 10th century by the geographer Ibn
Khaukal. The Turkis had begun to study geography
while still in the Altai; there are rock paintings there
that contain geographical information. Also well-
known are the star charts of the Altai's ancient
inhabitants. Unfortunately, they remain almost
completely unstudied. No one so far has made the
effort.

Mausoleum of the Sultan Tekesh, founder of the

Khorezmshakh Dynasty, in Kunya-Urench. 13th
century.

In a boat on the Persian Gulf. Miniature from Buzurg

ibn Shakhriyar's manuscript Wonders of India. 10th
century.

Pages 90 and 93
Prayer hall of the Sidi-Okba Mosque in Kayruan. 9th
century.

Chart showing the changes in handwritten Arabic

script. An inscription from 328, found near Damascus,
is thought to be the oldest known in Arabic. It
resembles Arabic script, but is in fact not. It is clearly
Turkic cursive. Another old inscription dates back to
512, and it too is not Arabic script. Only in the 8th
century did the Arabic way of writing, now familiar to
millions, take shape. It was then that people began
writing in Arabic.

Scribe. Detail of a miniature from the manuscript

"Messages of the Brothers of Purity". 1287.
Sulemanye Library, Istanbul.

Pages 94-95
The Prophet kneeling. Wood. 1520. Collection of
West European Sculpture, Berlin. No one now
remembers that inhabitants of Spain, southern France,
and parts of Italy practised Islam in the Dark and
Middle Ages; they called themselves allies and co-
religionists of the Catholics. This is how European
Moslems saw the Prophet Mohammed - in Turkic
dress.
Statue of King Gagik Bagratuni from Ani. 11th
century. Armenia. During the Dark and Middle Ages,
Turkic clothing was fashionable not only in European
countries, but in the Near East as well. Even in
Armenia, kings wore the turban and the caftan in the
Turkic manner.

Medieval tower of Baku.

Portrait of a young woman. 1420. National Gallery,

Washington. Once again, the turban can be seen.

Pages 96-97
Church of John the Baptist in the village of Dyakovo,
near Moscow. 16th century. Once again, the octagon -
a Turkic architectural tradition. No further words are
needed. This is real History, without any falsification.

Folding stand for holding a Koran. Carved walnut.

13th century. Museum of Islamic Nations' Art, Berlin.
No words are needed here, either; they would only be
superfluous. Secret writing from the Ancient Altai can
be seen in the ornamentation. These designs, like the
frame on a picture, are part of its national culture.
Nothing here is by chance.

Pages 98-99
Holiday procession. Miniature from al-Hariri's
manuscript "Maqamat" (published in English as "The
Assemblies of al-Hariri"). 1237. National Library,
Paris.

Tatar banner with cross and crescent (military trophy).

17th century. Military Museum, Stockholm. This is
perhaps the rarest trophy in the world - a true relic.
This is the banner under which the Great Steppe
fought. It was just such a banner that Attila brought to
Europe, one emblazoned with the ancient Turkic
symbols. The symbols were then separated, just as the
Turkic nation was itself torn into two. The Christians
took one half for themselves, the Moslems the other
half. The cross and the crescent became the symbols
of two different religions.

Pages 100-101
Frieze from the facade of Mshatta Castle. Fragment.
Carved stone. 743. Museum of Islamic Nations' Art,
Berlin.

Court scene from the Seljuk period. Fragment. Plaster

casting. 12th century. Museum of Art, Philadelphia.
The Turkis prized science, literature, and art. The
khans, for example, always had coins and other items
of gold ready to throw by the handful at the feet of a
poet. The Sultan Melikshakh, from the Seljuk
Dynasty, left other glories behind. He brought
together famous astronomers (one of whom was the
astronomer and poet Omar Khayyam), and on March
15, 1079, declared the beginning of a new era. He
introduced a new calendar, one which corrected the
mistakes in reckoning time, both in the past and in the
future. It was the most accurate calendar in the world.
It would be another 500 years before such a calendar
would appear in Europe.

The al-Malwiyah Minaret of the al-Mutawakkil

Mosque in Samarra. 9th century. Samarra - is this not
a familiar name? It is a city, not far from Baghdad,
which was raised in the 9th century in honour of the
holy mountain of Uch-Sumer in the Altai. It is a holy
city. The mosque of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil has
become a monument there; with it began a new style
in the construction of mosques. "New", because it was
a blend of Turkic and local (that is, ancient
Mesopotamian) traditions.

Pages 102-103
Graphic reconstruction of the temple in the village of
Lekit. 5th to 6th centuries. Azerbaijan.

Dome of the Rock (Qubbat as-Sakhrah) in Jerusalem.

7th century. Restored and partially rebuilt in the 12th
and 17th centuries.

Mosque of the Sultan Hasan in Cairo. Courtyard.

1363.

Pages 104-105
Medieval tower in Baku.

Drunken revel of the Sultan Mohammed. Drawing

from the manuscript "Diwan", a collection of short
odes by Hafiz. 16th century. Cartier Collection, Paris.
Like all the world's people, the Moslems love
holidays. In the Dark and Middle Ages, they
celebrated practically all the Christian holidays, since
they were the common holidays of those who
worshipped Tengri. During the Turkic Easter holiday
(Navruz-bairam), the Moslems and Christians of
Baghdad walked together to the Samaluk Monastery
and began celebrating. They would carry on, as a
participant in the event, Shabushti, wrote, "until the
walls started to dance around us." A veritable river of
sharab al-kurban wine flowed during the holy
communion.

Pages 106-107
Koutoubia Mosque in Marrakech (also spelled
Marrakesh). Built in the 12th century.

Sultan Mahmoud of Gazni crossing the Ganges. A

detail of a drawing. 16th century. Sultan Mahmoud
has been called a man with an unusually sharp mind.
Thus, on the bank of the Amu-Darya, he ordered boats
to be extended across the river and fastened together
with chains. The result was a pontoon bridge, which
the Sultan crossed with his army. Their subsequent
attack was swift and unexpected; it decided the
outcome of the war. "No one here had ever seen such
bridges before," noted the chroniclers.

Vessel of rock crystal. 10th-11th centuries. Victoria

and Albert Museum, London. The times have
changed, but scenes from the Altai remain the same.
Even after they began calling themselves a different
people, the proud Turkis preserved their past and
handed down memories of it in their manufactures.
Their jewellery, decorations, even their buildings,
were the sighing of a dormant memory.

Cooking-pot. Found in Azerbaijan. 12th-13th

centuries. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Page 109
Phases of the Moon. Drawing from al-Biruni's work
on astronomy. Al-Biruni was not just a great
astronomer, but an expert on different nations as well.
In his tract "On the Stations of the Moon", he wrote:
"The Arabs are an illiterate people; they cannot write
or count. They accept only that which they see with
their own eyes, since they know no other way of
study." The great Turki's mathematical calculations
were incomprehensible to them. This observation of
his referred to the inhabitants of Arabia, who - five
centuries after the adoption of Islam - remained as
uneducated as before.

Lute player. Relief from Asia Minor. Marble. c. 1230.

Museum of Islamic Nations' Art, Berlin. It is thought
that Western Europe learned about the lute from the
Arabs, since the name is derived from the Arabic al-
ud, or "wood". This, however, is incorrect, since the
lute has always been known in Eastern Europe, where
it was called a kobza, and one who played it was a
kobzar. It was an ancient Turkic instrument; the word
meant "plays on a komuz". The so-called Arabic
expression is actually Turkic: al ot - "take it and sing
('let sound come forth')".

Pages 110-111
Representation of the constellation Ophiuchus, the
Serpent-holder. Drawing from the star catalogue of
Abdarrakhman as-Sufi. 10th century.

Socrates with his pupils. Detail of a miniature from al-

Mubashshir's manuscript Select Wise Sayings and
Gems of Oratory. 13th century. Topkapi Palace
Museum, Istanbul. This miniature tells a great deal. In
medieval Europe, the great scholars of the Ancient
World - Socrates, Aristotle, Herodotus, and others -
were forbidden by the Church. Their works were
completely unknown. Only the Turkis kept copies of
these classics of human thought, and were able to
delight in them.

Miniature from Dioscorides's manuscript

"Pharmacology" in Arabic. 1224. Museum of Western
and Eastern Art, Kiev. Among the Turkis, the pursuit
of chemistry was anything but frivolous: they were
seeking the Elixir of Life, which would free them
from sickness and old age. They of course found no
such elixir; on the other hand, they accumulated a
great deal of knowledge about the chemical elements.
They called this knowledge "chemistry", from the
Ancient Turkic kimja, or "elixir".

Page 112
Part of a destroyed Coptic church. Egypt.

Pages 114-115
Zebu-shaped water vessel, the so-called Shirvan water
vessel. Bronze. 1206. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Fragment of a mosaic from the Church of St. Michael

Africisco, near Ravenna. Glass, smalt, natural
pebbles. 544. Early Christian and Byzantine
Collection, Berlin. Just as it should, this panorama of
heavenly life crowns the vault of the church. On his
throne, Almighty Tengri bestows his blessing on the
Catholic priest. It is possible that this blessing
contains the origin of the Catholic idea - the idea of a
union between East and West. Or, perhaps something
else as well: the artist called this work Tengri or
Khodai; he could scarcely have called it anything else.
Was it not from this that the universally recognized
Gott or God was derived? Though a bit distorted, this
is how many Europeans now pronounce the name of
the Almighty. It comes from Khodai.

Detail from the gates of the Kunia-Ark Palace in

Khiva. 17th century.

Page 116
Iskandar visits a hermit. Detail of a miniature from the
Nizami manuscript "Khamseh" ("The Quintuplet").
1543. Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Oriental Studies Manuscript Collection, St.
Petersburg.

St. George. Detail of a mural in Kintsvisi Cathedral.

13th century. Georgia. Can no one really say exactly
who is depicted here? In those times, the Turkis called
him Jor, or Jargan. It is from this that the name
Georgia is derived; that is, "the Land of St. George".
Christians now call him St. George; the Moslems,
Khyzr. The word Khyzr came from Khazar, the name
of the Caspian Sea, on the shores of which (in
Derbent) the hero performed his great deed and
acquired immortality.
Pages 118-119
The Turkic karaka-ship. An old drawing.

Unloading a ship. Detail of a miniature from the

manuscript "Kalila and Dimna". c. 1350. The Oguz,
once they came to power in the Caliphate, did a great
deal to elevate the Moslem world. They translated
priceless works of Turkic science and literature into
Arabic. The parable "Kalila and Dimna" was just one
of many hundreds.

Detail of the plate "Silen and Menada". Gilded silver.

7th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 120-121
Greek fire. Detail of a miniature. 14th century.

Iconoclast. Fragment of a miniature from the Khludov

Psalter. 9th century. Historical Museum, Moscow.
Iconoclasm was a heinous crime - an act of
vandalism. It was committed by the Greek Church,
when it became the first such institution in the Dark
Ages to begin obliterating the image of the God of
Heaven. From this time on, people started to forget
the name and face of Tengri; it was all purely
political.

Pages 122-123
Belvedere Courtyard in the Vatican. Overall view.
Begun in 1505.

Arnolfo di Cambio. Fragment of the Cardinal

Guillaume de Braye's tomb in the Church of San
Domenico at Orvieto. 1282.

Pages 124-125
Members of a monastic order. Miniature from a
French book. 14th century. National Library, Paris.
On the chest of each monk is an order - the Turkic
mark of distinction which became a part of European
culture.

St. Etienne as a deacon. Silver. 12th century.

Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Pages 126-127
Tomb of Archbishop Friedrich von Wettin.
Magdeburg Cathedral. Bronze. 1160.

Coats of Arms of Popes Pius II, Innocent III, Urban

IV, Clement IV, Nicholas III, George XIII, Honorius
III, Nicholas IV, John XXII, John XXI. On Pius II's
coat of arms is an equilateral cross, charged with five
crescents. On Nicholas IV's are three fleurs-de-lis (the
Altai lotus) and two six-pointed mullets, or stars. On
Gregory XIII's is the dragon, a charge which needs no
explanation. Each pope had his own sign of the East.

The Bogomil Sarcophagus. 10th century. Balkans.

Pages 128-129
Pillaging. Miniature from "A French Chronicle". 15th
century. National Library, Paris.

Raphael. Mass in Bolsena. Detail from the fresco

"Stanza d'Eliodoro". 1511. Vatican Palace, Rome.

Pages 130-131
Middleton Cross. Stonecarving. 10th century.
Yorkshire, England.

Deer. Head of a staff from a burial mound in Sutton

Hoo, estate near Woodbridge, Suffolk. 10th century.
England.

Castle of Monsegur in the Pyrenees - the last refuge of

the Cathari in 1244.

Viking ship. Useberg. c. 800.

Pages 132-133
Scenes from the life of Sigurd. Woodcarving. 12th
century.

Scenes from the life of Sigurd. Runestone. 11th

century.

Construction site. Miniature from Barberini's Psalter.

11th century. Vatican, Rome.

Pages 134-135
Baleen plate, topped with two horses' heads. Found in
Norway. 9th century. British Museum, London.

Caernarvon Castle. Construction begun in 1283 by

Edward I, uniter of Wales and England.

Page 136
Map with a route to America (Vinland) and runic
inscriptions. c. 16th century. This is not the actual
map, but a copy. Found by chance at the archbishop's
estate in Esztergom, on the banks of the Danube, it
was in the private collection of Guzsa Sepesi, the
director of the city's museum. The original map
vanished mysteriously in the archives of the Vatican.

Horseman. Fragment of a relief in Hornhausen. Stone.

c. 700. Halle Museum.

Pages 138-139
Letter "P" from a medieval manuscript. 12th century.
Animals devouring one another was a favourite motif
of the Altai. This has long been a point of dispute for
European archaeologists. It is curious indeed that this
motif is encountered only where the descendants of
the Kipchaks lived.

Erhart Reyvich. View of Venice. Illustration for

"Breidenbach's Journey". 1486.

Relief with heraldic figures from Venice. Marble.

11th-12th centuries. State Museum, Berlin. These too
are symbols of the distant Altai.

Page 140
Pilgrims. Detail from a portal in Autun Cathedral,
Burgundy. Stone. 12th century. In the Middle Ages,
pilgrims from different countries understood one
another quite well: they essentially spoke one
language. This was sometimes called "Barbaric" or
"Vulgate"; more often, it was known as "the Divine
Tongue". This was Turkic speech. It was introduced
into European culture at the end of the 4th century by
Hieronymus, a Kipchak - one of the first to settle in
the Western Roman Empire. It was he who created the
script that was to take the place of runes. Today, this
script is known as the Glagolitic alphabet.
Hieronymus translated the Holy Book of the
Christians - the Bible - into the "national language".

Grieving peasant woman. Detail from Cologne

Cathedral. Stone. c. 1322.

Pages 142-143
Knights board ship to embark on the Crusade.
Miniature from the manuscript "Statute of the Naples
Order of the Holy Ghost". 14th century.

Crusader Friedrich Barbarossa. Miniature from the

manuscript "A History of Jerusalem". 13th century. A
legendary figure of the Middle Ages - and not, of
course, because he, like Genghis Khan, was called
Redbeard. This man was virtually the only one who
refused to be a toady to the Pope. It is said he boldly
told the Pope that "it was not you who gave me power
over the nation, but Tengri".

Pages 144-145
Taking of Antioch. The First Crusade. Miniature from
a medieval manuscript.

Homecoming of a crusader. Fragment from a tomb

memorial in Nancy. This was a memorial to Count
Hugo of Vaudemont, a participant in the Second
Crusade. Next to him is his wife, a daughter of the
Duke of Lorraine. Their faces are both expressive and
recognisable: they are true Kipchaks. Apparently, not
all the Kipchaks' descendants forgot the ancient law of
their ancestors: "Take only one of your own for a
wife." Was this not the reason for one of the women
who took part in the Crusades to become the wife of a
sultan and the mother of the famous Caliph Imad ad-
Din Zangi (Zangi also spelled Zengi), who, in the 12th
century, killed crusaders a number of times?

Knight. Detail from Cologne Cathedral. Stone. c.

1322.

Pages 146-147
The ceremonial of dubbing. Miniature from the
Oxford Codex.

Battle between a knight and a dragon. Water vessel.

Bronze. 13th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 148-149
Crusaders battling Moslems. Stained-glass window
from the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Knight. Tomb in Gloucester Cathedral. 12th century.

Pages 150-151
Charles the Great. From a mozaic portait. 9th century.

Portrait of a Burgundian. Steel helmet. 16th century.

British Museum, London.

Knights. Lithograph. 19th century.

Pages 152-153
St. George and the Dragon. Detail of a fresco from a
church in Staraya Ladoga. This is a very rare
monument of the Middle Ages: it shows the changes
to the biography of St. George. It is as though two
motifs have been blended into one on the icon: the old
and the new. The priest has become a warrior; he is on
horseback, but, as before, he is not killing the dragon.
That which is new always takes some time to crowd
the old out of people's memory.

Weapons of a knight. Detail of the Bayeux Tapestry.

11th century. Bayeux Cathedral.

Knight. Detail of the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century.

Bayeux Cathedral.

Pages 154-155
The dombra, queen of musical instruments, in a
Kazakh yurt.

Tournament. Miniature from "Froissart's Chronicles".

15th century. France.

Pages 156-157
Knights' tournament. From Duke Wilhelm IV's "A
Book of Tournaments". 16th century. State Library,
Munich.

Desiderio da Settignaano. Portrait of a princess from

Urbino. Limestone. 15th century. Collection of West
European Sculpture, Berlin.

Pages 158-159
"Electing the Emperor". Drawing from the manuscript
"The Codex of Baldwin of Trier". Provincial
Archives, Koblenz. A coronation would seem to be a
common scene in art. Before the arrival of the Turkis,
however, the monarchs of Europe did not wear
crowns. Diadems were worn on the heads of the
Roman emperors (see the bust of Julian on p. 25); this
was something altogether different.

Storming the Fortress of Love. Ivory carving. 1400.

State Museum, Berlin.

Benedetto Antelami. Statue of a musician. From the

baptistery in Parma, Lombardy. Detail. 12th century.

Page 160
Crusaders battling Egyptian forces. From a stained-
glass window at the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Iskodar mikhrab - the prayer niche in the wall of a

mosque. Woodcarving. 10th-11th centuries.
Uzbekistan. Incontrovertible evidence: the
ornamentation exactly follows Altai patterns that are
now common in both Europe and the East (see p. 71).

Pages 162-163
Taking of Antioch by the Crusaders. Stained-glass
window in the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Detail of an arch. From a church in Tsunda. Stone.

12th-13th centuries. Georgia.

Portrait of Queen Tamara. Detail from a cave painting

at the Monastery of Vardziya. 1184-1186.

Pages 164-165
Fortress in Khertvisi. 10th-14th centuries. Georgia.

Grigory Gagarin. Bath of the 17th century in

Shemakha. Drawing.

Horses in armour. Detail from a piece of jewellery.

Gold. 4th century, BC. S. Janshia Georgian Museum,
Tbilisi.

Pages 166-167
Monarch at a hunt. Detail from an engraved cup from
Mosul. Bronze. c. 1300. Museum of Islamic Nations'
Art, Berlin.

Genghis Khan. Drawing from the Chinese manuscript

"A History of the First Four Khans from the Clan of
Genghis". This drawing is not even worthy of serious
discussion. It is the product of a Chinese artist's
imagination, and the Chinese, as is well-known, draw
all people the same way - they make everyone look
Chinese! They don't know how to draw differently;
this is what makes their national art so charming.
Without realising it, every nation depicts the world the
way they see it.

Pages 168-169
Travellers in the mountains. Landscape in the Li
Chao-tao style. Fragment of a scroll. Paint on paper.
7th-8th centuries. At one time in the Gugong Museum
Collection, Beijing.

Mounted Mongol archer of the Ming Dynasty.

Drawing in coloured India ink. Victoria and Albert
Museum, London.

Page 170
Statuette of a woman. Figure from a Chinese tomb.
Terracotta. 7th-10th centuries. British Museum,
London.

Page 173
Sample of a Uighur letter. Fragment from the
manuscript "A Biography of Hsuan-tsang". 11th
century. Manuscript Collection, Russian Academy of
Sciences' Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg.

Portrait of an official. 10th-13th centuries. Hermitage,

St. Petersburg.

Pages 174-175
Siege of a Chinese fortress by the warriors of Genghis
Khan. Detail of a miniature.
The taking of Samarkand by the warriors of Genghis
Khan. Miniature from a Chagatai manuscript. 16th
century.

Pages 176-177
Pisanello (?). "Portrait of Sigismund of Luxembourg".
Parchment on wood, tempera. 1430. Art History
Museum, Vienna. The art of the Middle Ages is up to
this time a mystery, one that is distinguished by an
expressive artistic language. Scholars do not know
what kind of style this is - a style that was followed all
over Europe. Where did it come from? It has been
dubbed International Gothic. It is said that it had no
native land, and belonged to no one in particular. Is
this really true? Is it by accident that identical art,
sometimes separated by great distances, has been
found in Turkic lands - Flanders, Lombardy,
Burgundy, Tuscany, Catalonia, England, the banks of
the Rhine, and the lands of present-day Austria,
Hungary, Germany, Bohemia and Moravia? This is
not even a complete geographical listing. Where were
the fountainheads of such especially soft and elegant
painting? In the Altai, of course, among the Turkis.

Funerals of Genghis Khan. Detail of a miniature from

a medieval Indian manuscript.

Pages 178-179
Ruins of the ancient city of Bulgar. 10th-14th
centuries. Tatarstan.

Pages 180-181
St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. Detail. 11th century.
The cathedral's architecture does not merely remind
one of the exteriors of the temples of ancient Bulgar;
it duplicates them exactly. They were obviously
created by artisans from one school of building - the
school of the Great Steppe.

Market in Novgorod. Detail of a miniature. The Book

of Laptev.
Vladimir I, Grand Prince of Kiev with his army.
Detail.

Pages 182-183
Black Palace in the ancient city of Bulgar. 10th-14th
centuries. Tatarstan.

Ancient Turkic temple in Bulgar. 10th-14th centuries.

Tatarstan.

Pages 184-185
People of Galitsko-Volynskaya Rus fleeing to the
Mongols. Miniature from a Hungarian chronicle.
1488. Two centuries after these events, a new
"history" of Rus would start to be written: legends
would appear about the horrors of tribute; then about
the "Tatar-Mongol yoke".

Batu. Drawing from the Chinese manuscript "A

History of the First Four Khans from the Clan of
Genghis".

The Russian Prince Fyodor Rostislavovich arrives at

the Horde for his warrant to collect tribute from Rus.
Detail of the hagiographical icon. 15th century.
Museum Collection, Yaroslavl.

Page 187
Our Lady of Vladimir. Detail of the icon . Tretyakov
Gallery, Moscow.

Pages 188-189
Fragment from the sculptured decoration of the
Cathedral of St. Dmitry. Vladimir. 1194. This
cathedral is one of the oldest in Russia. It is a subject
of dispute among architects. In their opinion, the
building duplicates the churches of Dark Ages
Lombardy, which were identical to temples built by
Turkic artisans in both the Transcaucasus and Europe.
The resemblance is beyond question. They do not,
however, recognise Turkic architecture in Russia.
They continue to argue without knowing that in the
19th century, the Frenchman Viollet-le-Duc
"travelled" all the way to the Altai in his research, and
told the world about Turkic temple architecture.
Another scholar, the Austrian Jozef Strzygowski,
wrote a unique work on the history of iconography,
which also, as it turns out, began in the Altai.

Pages 190-191
"Massacre on the Ice in 1242." Detail of a miniature
from "An Illuminated Chronicle of the Codex". 16th
century.

Teutonic Knights pursue the Swedes. Medieval

miniature.

Page 192
Gothic arch of an interior staircase for horsemen,
leading into the Vladislav Hall. Detail. Sobeslav
Palace, Prague.

Battle between Polish and Mongolian warriors in

1241. From a Polish mural painting. 15th century.
National Museum, Warsaw.

Pages 194-195
Horrors of the Inquisition. Drawing from Samuel
Clark's book "A Martyrology".

Lange Castle. France.

St. Dominic. Museum at Aveiro.

Pages 196-197
Street in Vienna.

Bonfire of the Inquisition. Miniature from a medieval

manuscript.

Pages 198-199
Burning heretics in Paris. Miniature. 13th century.

Pages 200-201
University of Salamanca. Facade. 1515. Spain.

Detail of the "Christ the Pantocrator" icon. 1363.

Pages 202-203
Fortress tower in Beijing. It has been rebuilt many
times. 15th-17th centuries.

Head of a man. Detail of a funeral vessel found near

Samarkand, Uzbekistan. c. 7th century. The bones of
nobles were kept in such vessels (shrines). It is
possible that the remains of some of Genghis Khan's
sons, and even Genghis himself, are preserved in such
shrines. This is not likely; however, the possibility
cannot be excluded, since no one has ever found the
grave of Genghis Khan. The Turkic artisans hid their
burial places very well.

Pages 204-205
Hans Baldung. "Wild Horses." 1534.

Page 206
Hans Baldung. "The Enchanted Groom." 1544.

Page 215
Hunting with hawks. Detail of a French casket. Bone.
14th century. Metropolitan Museum, New York.
Cover:
Crusader in a hauberk. Miniature from a book. 13th
century. British Museum, London.

The Bird of the World Above - a sign of unity for the

Turkis. Felt. 5th century BC. The Altai.

Back fly-leaf:
Mahmoud Pakhlavan's Complex in Khiva. Majolica.
14th century.

Horsemen:
like the designs of the Altai,
they have become a symbol
of medieval Europe as well.

Использование материалов
сайта без согласования c
автором запрещается. При Создание сайта 2004
использовании материалов Арт-Конструктор
сайта ссылка на сайт
обязательна.
откли колон
в об
ново кни интер ки ка филь конта engl deut espa
нач авт
сти ги вью читат читат мы кты ish sch nol
ало оре
елей еля
 Murad ADJI
THE KIPCHAKS and
THE OGUZ
A Medieval History of the Turkic People and
the Great Steppe
A Handbook for Schoolchildren and Their
Parents

Moscow

This is the second volume of the book about the

Turkic people, from its rise in the Altai Mountains
and its spillover to the rest of the Eurasian continent.
The touching narrative and thrilling legends relate
about little-known facts of world history and the life
as it really was for the Turkis in the Middle Ages,
their contribution to human civilization, their victories
and setbacks. Nothing like this book has ever been
published anywhere around the world.

© Murad Adji, 2002

© St. George International Charity Foundation
(Jargan), 2002

Introduction
Europe and the Turkis
Customs of Ancient Rome
Katylik Means Ally
The New Romans
Europe after Attila
The Near East and the Turkis
The Robber Synod and Other Assemblies
Pope Gregory the Great
The Catholic Turkis
The Anglo-Saxon Campaigns
The English Kipchaks
Islam
The Koran
The Signs of Islam
Sultan Mahmud
The Turkic Caliphate
On the Eve of Great Changes
Dissent
The New Europeans
The Crusades
Gentiles and Knights
The Seljuk Turkis
Genghis Khan
The Sulde of Genghis Khan
The Yoke That Never Was
The Inquisition
The Descendants of Genghis Khan
List of Illustrations and Commentary

Ex oriente lux -
"Light comes from the East"…
...and transforms the world

Introduction

In the life of every nation, as in the life of every

person, certain events take place. There are many of
these events. More to the point, life is an endless
series of these events. However, while some are quite
ordinary and pass unnoticed, others are very different
- with the force of a hurricane, they sweep away
everything that surrounds them. The destruction of the
old has always transformed itself into the birth of the
new. This is how eras in the history of mankind have
always begun and ended: with events that shake the
world.
The Great Migration of the Peoples that took place
from the 2nd to the 5th centuries was one such event.
Like a tornado, it swept away all that lay before it and
transformed life on the Eurasian continent beyond all
recognition. After it had gone, the Ancient World - the
Greece and Rome of antiquity - entered the period of
the Dark Ages (also called Late Antiquity, or the
Early Middle Ages).
The Great Migration began in the Ancient Altai. At
first, it was rather quiet and ordinary; soon, however,
all of the vast Eurasian continent came to feel it. It
was then that Turkic horsemen drove their mounts to
the far reaches of the known world: starting from
Central Asia, they reached the shores of the Pacific,
Indian and Atlantic Oceans. Thousands of kilometres
of the territory they had traversed now lay behind.
The horsemen settled huge stretches of land that had
barely been populated earlier. There was no force on
earth capable of holding back and stopping this living
tide that came pouring out of the Altai. All the armies
everywhere gave way in encounter battle.
And in one of history's great events the Ancient
World was trampled under the hooves of the
horsemen.
They destroyed all that was old in order to give
people a new life.
The Great Migration of the Peoples was that most
rare of events: in the history of mankind, such a thing
has happened only once. The world has never known
anything like it either before or since. The victories of
Alexander the Great, the Roman emperors and even
the famous Genghis Khan pale before it. They simply
appear too ordinary.
Of course, the Great Migration did not begin all in
one place, all by itself or all at once. The Turkic
people had been gathering strength for seven
centuries. For seven hundred years they had been
laboriously preparing themselves for it, creating a
culture which, following on the heels of Classical
culture, would ennoble the world of people.
This was no accident; it could not possibly have
been. People adopted the Dark Ages culture (and,
later, that of the Middle Ages as well) without a
struggle. Why? What was different about it? What
was in it that so attracted people?
First of all, there was the belief in the God of
Heaven - in Tengri, who watched over the Turkis.
This faith of a Single God was something completely
new in the life of humanity. The peoples of the
Ancient World, like those of the world before it, were
ignorant of it. They were pagans. Paganism and a
belief in many gods distinguished this era.
The people of Ancient Greece, for example, prayed
to Zeus and Hera; in the Roman Empire, they
worshipped Mercury, Jupiter and other gods. They
would bow their heads, offer sacrifices and beg for
protection before their images. Save for the Turkis,
the God of Heaven was unknown to the world; they
did not pray to Him.
The God of the Altai was called Tengri, the Eternal
Blue Sky. Under his eternally watchful eye the
horsemen rode out into the world. They rode out
boldly and confidently. It was for this reason that
before each attack, before each new battle the
horsemen would loudly chant "Allah billah! Allah
billah!" - Turkic for "With God", or "God is with us!".
They were always victorious.
Other peoples immediately noticed this.
At that time, they believed that victory in battle was
due not to the warriors, but to their Patron God, and to
Him alone. In accepting the new faith, people were
also begging to come under the protection of a
powerful god: this was the role of the faith in the lives
of the nations. It is because of this that ethnographers
reserve a special place in their research for religion.

…The second distinguishing feature of Turkic

civilisation was iron - the metal that the Great Tengri
gave to his people.
Iron allowed the Altaians to create a huge number
of useful objects for the home, work and waging war.
No one in the world cast iron as artfully or used it for
so many different purposes. Thousands of smithy
forges worked day and night to turn out this precious
metal; iron was then valued more highly than gold.
This, too, drew other peoples to the Turkis.
In the Altai there was a holiday of iron; it first
appeared five hundred years before the beginning of
the Christian Era, when they had just learned to smelt
the precious metal in their smithy furnaces. The Great
Khan himself opened the first holiday. He approached
the anvil and struck the red-hot metal with a hammer.
Each blow awoke a certain pride within the people,
recalling the greatness of the ancestors who had given
their descendants the gifts of freedom and strength.
Only then would the festivities begin: horse-racing,
dancing, singing, feasting and revelry.
 It was a holiday celebrated by all the Turkic people.
It is clear that the Great Migration was not just
people moving to a new location; nor was it merely
the conquest of neighbouring lands. It was something
else entirely. It resulted in the irrevocable destruction
of mankind's Bronze Age and opened the way to the
Age of Iron.
The Turkis consciously broke with a past that had
outlived its usefulness and embraced a new,
progressive future. This happened across the
continent.
People talk about this period in different ways,
some calling it the Barbarian Invasions, or the
Invasion of the Huns. This is not true. It is not true for
the simple reason that the belief in the God of Heaven
and iron first appeared among many peoples at this
point in history - immediately after their initial contact
with the Turkis, during the Dark Ages.
The horsemen - the emissaries of the God of
Heaven - were deified.
Even in appearance the Turkic people differed from
others. They had their own unique features, quite
unlike those of any other nation on the planet. The
horse that would become the symbol, or tamga (tribal
emblem), of the newcomers from the Altai as well as
the banners bearing the Cross of Tengri were among
those features that distinguished the Turkis from other
peoples.
The Ancient World had never seen anything like it.
Even their clothing was unlike anything it had seen
before, since it was the clothing of a horseman - a
missionary and warrior who never spent a moment
away from his horse.
No, the Great Migration was most certainly not the
spontaneous exodus from the Altai that some write
about. Nor was it an invasion. It was not "wild
nomads" who left their homelands, but a nation that
had become crowded inside the valleys of the Altai.
They needed new lands and new expanses in which to
grow. It was at this time that the word kipchak first
appeared - a "crowded one". This was the name given
to the roaming horsemen.
When speaking of the Altai, they meant an entirely
different land than that which we mean today: all of
Southern Siberia, from Lake Baikal in the east to the
Pamir Mountains in the west. That is to say, a huge,
mountainous land that stretched to Tibet - this is what
they called the Altai.
There are many monuments to these bygone days -
witnesses to the past, one might say. Sometimes they
are quite surprising. Examine them more closely.
Thus, in 1974, archaeologists found a royal burial
mound in north-western China, a region where
Turkic-Uighur people live to this day, though they
have long since forgotten their true history. The finds
from the ancient burial mound confounded the
scholars. They were completely taken aback by clay
statues - several thousand of them - that showed the
clothing of warriors and the accoutrements of their
horses. They all had their faces to the north, towards
Uch-Sumer, the holy mountain of the Altai. It clearly
was not the work of the Chinese.
They were not Chinese, because there were no
Chinese living here in the 3rd century BC. Their
country lay far to the south, beyond the Great Wall.
The clay warriors are portraits of today's Uighurs,
Kyrgyz, Kazakhs, Khakass, and Nogay. Faces such as
these are also common among Kumyks, Tatars and
Bashkirs, but not among the Chinese.
Yet another example, one that is also
extraordinarily striking:
Not far from the town of Rummindei, in Nepal,
there is a column with an ancient inscription. The
Buddhists will assure you that it is a holy place, for
here is carved the name of the founder of their
religion - a man who came from the Altai, from the
clan of Shakyas. The column was raised in the 5th
century BC. It was at this time that the Indians first
laid eyes on the Turkis and were surprised by their
appearance. This is why they called Buddha the
"Turkic God", or the "Buddha Shakyamuni". From
this time forward they would depict him with blue
eyes, like those of other Turkis.
Today Buddhism is one of the world's main
religions, but time has hidden within it a mysterious
trail - one which is, however, still visible to those who
know how to look for it. There is a science of religion,
a discipline which studies the secrets of different
faiths and allows us to understand much about the
past.
For example: in their communes, Buddhist monks
live according to a strict set of rules, one which is
known to scholars. What, one might ask, can this
information tell us? As it turns out, it can tell us a
great deal. To someone with the proper background it
reveals that Buddhism was in fact founded by the
Turkis. There is a great deal in common between the
belief in Tengri and the teaching of Buddha. There
can be only one source for these teachings: the
wisdom of the Altaic sages. This is why the Ancient
Altai was called the Earthly Paradise, the Flowering
Eden: it was here that the world's great religions
began.
They came from the Altai's Eternal Blue Sky.
Three thousand years ago, spiritual quests began in
the Altai. The belief in a God of Heaven was born.
The times were harsh. Then, in order to preserve their
ancient religion, some of the Turkis migrated to India,
Iran and the steppes of Europe. They were called
Scythians and Saks. Spiritual protest provided the first
roads out of the Ancient Altai.
In the 2nd century, the mass exodus of Altaians
onto the steppes began, but the reason for it was quite
different: it was economic. By this time, simply too
many Altaians had been born, and the mountain
valleys were now crowded. The nation needed new
farmland, pastures and grasslands.
Turkic speech has been heard ever since in the
Caucasus, the Middle East and Europe. It was there to
which the horsemen came to open the Dark Ages.

Europe and the Turkis

As is well known, every event has its consequences.

One result of the Great Migration was the state of
Desht-i-Kipchak, the largest in human history. It grew
slowly and painfully, as its borders expanded behind
the companies of horsemen who streamed forth from
it. "Wherever our horses' hooves go is our land," said
the Kipchaks.
Its zenith came with the indefatigable general
Attila; and in the 5th century, following the death of
Attila, the steppeland empire fell apart. This, it would
seem, is the fate of all large nations: they are short-
lived. Desht-i-Kipchak fell, but it was not destroyed
by enemies; neither was it brought down by floods or
other natural disasters. It was destroyed by the Turkis
themselves, by their own hand.
 How and why did this happen? There is no simple
answer. The explanation lies in its history as a whole.
From the start the country was shaken by
internecine wars, which caused it to fragment into
dozens of smaller nations. These were not alone.
Everyone else hated Desht-i-Kipchak; the entire
ancient world wanted it destroyed. They did what they
could against it.
Rome was especially zealous in its hatred. The
Roman Empire was the creation and crown of the
ancient world. It had once been a city-state. It then
became a republic, in which the Senate held power.
The senators had been members of patrician, that is,
noble, families. Julius Caesar, however, changed this
rule: once he had seized power, he transformed the
Republic into an empire. Under his rule the successes
of the Romans were nothing short of fantastic. They
conquered the entire Mediterranean Basin. The
ancient world lay at Rome's feet.
The Empire lived as in the Golden Age and knew only
victory. It was not renowned for its crafts, its art or its
religion. It was renowned for its wars. The nation
worked for the Army, as the Army worked for the
nation.
The Romans' main enemy were the Greeks. These
two nations had long been rivals over trade with the
East, and especially with Persia. The Greeks lived
closer to the Persians and had already controlled the
trade routes into Europe for centuries.
The Romans, however, once they had formed the
Republic, soon conquered Greece, and assigned to the
Greeks the humiliating role of Roman subjects. For
seven hundred years, Roman rule held sway: the
Empire defined its own boundaries and determined
the fate of Europe.
Julius Caesar fixed the northern border of the
Empire at the Rhine and established a string of forts
and defensive works there. The Emperor Augustus set
the border to the east, along the Danube. The Empire
appeared to be an unassailable citadel. The ancient
historian Pliny the Elder wrote about these times as
"the unbelievable grandeur of Rome". His words rang
essentially true.
However, thunder could be heard in the cloudless
sky.
The Pax Romana was shattered in the year 312, at
the very walls of the City itself. Her hitherto
invincible army, the pride of the emperors, for the first
time suffered a terrible defeat. Comically, it was
beaten by Turkic horsemen who had come at the
invitation of the Greeks.
The Emperor Maxentius fell, hacked to pieces like
a thin reed.
Following this battle, the Roman Empire came
tumbling down, splitting into two parts: Eastern and
Western. In the Eastern half the Greek Constantine
ruled, while Romans continued to rule in the West.
They were hardly the same, self-satisfied Romans as
before, however. They had only their memories left.

Constantine proved to be a clever and cunning

ruler. He declared the supremacy of the Turkic
religion in his lands, and began paying subsidies
himself; from Desht-i-Kipchak he asked for little in
return. Any Turkis who would serve in the Greek
Army would teach the Greeks to build new cities and
temples, open up new pasturelands and raise cattle.
It would have seemed that the Emperor's intentions
were entirely peaceful.
Constantine thus lulled the khans into a false sense
of security: he had only humbled himself in order to
win back from the Turkis the trade routes to the East;
time and money would then work in favour of the
Greeks. He wagered his entire future on this cunning
scheme.
Put succinctly, Constantine had come up with a
plan to redirect the Great Migration into a new
channel: the living river of Turkic culture began to
flow into and enrich the Hellenic World. A new
culture appeared, one which would later be called
Byzantine.
Byzantium truly became a land where the Altai
could be felt in literally everything. The Greeks
adopted the Kipchak religion: in the year 312 they
began praying to Tengri. By 325, however, they had
grown bold enough to start calling it "Greek
Christianity", and declared the Emperor Constantine
to be God's Representative on Earth. In their minds, it
was he, Constantine, who had broken up the Great
Roman Empire.
The Greek Christians dealt ruthlessly with their
former, pagan religion. They destroyed the old
temples and palaces, and expelled and killed the
pagan priests. What, after the 4th century, remained
Greek in Byzantium? No one can say.
Playing up to Christianity, the Greeks destroyed the
works of Aristotle, Plato, Herodotus and other great
scholars. In 391 they even set fire to the world famous
Library of Alexandria, with its rare ancient
manuscripts. No one grieved for it.
However, the treasures of the Ancient World did
not disappear: they were saved by - the Turkis! Today
the world knows about Aristotle and Plato only
because of their efforts. No one in the West now
remembers that it was the Turkis who, for a thousand
years, kept translations of the works of Europe's
ancient authors in their libraries.

When the Greeks burned the ancient manuscripts,

the faith of the God of Heaven was unknown in the
Western Empire. Before 380 official Rome
recognized only the religion of Mercury as supreme;
for other beliefs people were persecuted. This was a
calculated policy: the Emperor Valentinian I dreamed
of recovering lost territory. He despised the Kipchaks
and did nothing to conceal his hatred. Under him, the
Roman Army became stronger than it had ever been
before. Trumpets summoned new legionaries
throughout the Empire as, under Valentinian I, the
nation awoke from its long sleep.
It should be noted that this Emperor was a most
mysterious figure. Who was he? How did he ascend to
the throne? We know only a little.
His father had been an army officer. But this was
not the most important factor in his rise. His
contemporaries noted that the Emperor did not look
like a typical Roman: he was blue-eyed and fair-
haired - just like a Turki. Another indicator: the
Emperor happily accepted Turkic mercenaries into his
army and conversed with them freely. How? This also
cannot be adequately explained.
His first test came in 374. It was then that Kipchak
scouts first penetrated into the Western Empire. Once
they had crossed the Istr (Danube), they settled on the
modern-day lands of Hungary and Austria. Their
example was then followed by an entire horde of
Turkis. Rome, of course, could not come to terms
with this peaceful invasion.
 In their very first battle, however, her troops were
routed.
The following year, the Romans emerged from the
battlefield victorious. True, their holiday was spoiled
by the Kipchak embassy that was subsequently
dispatched. They failed to show even the slightest
signs of respect when they arrived at the Roman
headquarters, and laughed raucously at the victors.
The Emperor Valentinian could not tolerate such an
insult: he shook with indescribable rage - and then
dropped dead on the spot.
On their fertile Danube lands, the Kipchak now
established towns and villages - the first of their kind
in Western Europe. The settlers were called Huns,
Alemans, Ostrogoths and Visigoths. Though
obviously distorted, the name of the khan who led the
Visigoths was preserved: Fritigern. He would forever
be remembered in legends and chronicles by this
strange (to Turkic ears) sobriquet.
However, the names of the clan founders have
come down to us free from distortion, the way they
were originally pronounced in Turkic. The Visigoths
belonged to the tribe of the Balts (in Turkic, Sekira),
while the Ostrogoths belonged to that of the Amals (in
Turkic quiet, calm, gentle). This was fixed precisely
in European chronicles.
On August 9, 378, Roman troops once again
challenged the Turkic cavalry on the banks of the
Danube. Once again, they overestimated themselves.
A flanking attack by the horsemen was
overwhelming; after this battle, the Western Empire
ceased once and for all to have an army.
At this point Rome was forced to recognize the
Kipchaks.

Customs of Ancient Rome

Having lost in open battle, the Romans began to look

for success via their political policies. They found it:
through the Byzantine Emperor Theodosius I they
achieved what they wanted. Victories were at hand.
Contradictory data survives about Theodosius. He
was a layabout who led a life of ease. In fact, he was a
secretive and clever politician: all of his projects were
surprisingly successful. In 380, he issued an edict
condemning paganism, then another on the unity of
faith. By the time Theodosius became Emperor of
both Byzantium and Rome, he had established the
religion of the God of Heaven throughout the Western
World. The residents of Rome, however, were not yet
ready for this, and the news took them completely by
surprise.
Several people inhabited the Emperor's body at
once. He called himself a Christian, but took pleasure
in the torturing of his subjects. A wicked and cruel
man, he behaved unpredictably, and loved to surprise
his retinue with his unexpected escapades. However,
he was cold and calculating in everything he did.
Neither could anyone understand his behaviour when,
in 382, Theodosius invited the Turkic Horde (a
military alliance of the clans) into the lands of the
Western Empire.
He had invited the Kipchaks, for whom Rome had
the greatest contempt - and the most deathly fear.
Theodosius ordered that they be given estates, but
only on condition that the landowners' children serve
in his army. These estates became, in effect, small
foreign states: those who lived on them spoke Turkic,
followed Turkic law and had Turkic rulers. They were
not under the control of the Empire. They had
complete freedom and independence in all matters.
It is, perhaps, the Turkic geographical names that
the settlers brought with them which speak most
eloquently of those times. There are many such
names. They can be found everywhere in Western
Europe, wherever the Kipchaks settled. For example:
one of the mountain peaks in present-day Switzerland
still bears the name Tendri. Apparently, this peak
reminded the Turkis of the Altai mountain of Khan
Tengri.
The Turkis' free settlements caused something
resembling an outburst of rage in Europe, especially
after the Roman estate holders were obliged to turn
over a third of their pasturelands and one half of their
woodlands to the Turks.
This measure was given the name Hospitality, and
it was this word which was used in the official
imperial edict. It all began with this.
Previously, the strictest of laws was in effect,
forbidding marriages between Romans and Turkis. It
was now abolished. Mixed marriages were now, on
the contrary, welcomed. In Rome it became
fashionable among the masses to wear Turkic
clothing, which was both warmer and more
comfortable. The aristocrats fell in love with the
beautiful woollen tunics, breeches, baggy pantaloons,
and yepanchi (capes) of the Kipchaks.
In Europe, everything was becoming intermixed,
and everything was changing before people's eyes.
Turkis, those "wild barbarians", joined the
Emperor's retinue. They held positions of
responsibility. Khan Arbogast, whose name in Turkic
means "Red Throat", became Trainer of Soldiers, that
is, the commanding general of the army. The
General's voice sounded like a clap of thunder.
As part of the Emperor's retinue, this thundering
boor felt free to do whatever he wanted. When they
tried to remove him, he spat impudently in the
Emperor's face: "My power doesn't depend on your
smile or your frowning eyebrows!" Two days later,
the Emperor was found strangled in his own bed.
A contemporary of these events wrote the following
lines: "The title of Senator, which was to the Romans
in ancient times the epitome of all honours, has been
transformed by these fair-haired barbarians into
something wretched...."
This was quite true; it had become something
wretched. None of Rome's patricians could rival the
Turkis in the arts of either war or state. None of the
plebeians knew how to cultivate the land, raise cattle
or build cities and temples as well as the Turkis. The
Romans were too pampered and weak. The only thing
they had left was their hatred for the "fair-haired
barbarians".
In Western Europe the entire history of Byzantium's
birth was repeated. Here as well, two diverse cultures
- East and West - merged. Here as well, the Turkis
established their leadership, but already in Latin
society.
The East had clearly triumphed, but it was held
back by the Great Steppe. It was restrained by the
traditions and adats (unwritten codes of local customs,
traditional practices and conventions): like millstones
around the necks of the Kipchaks, they restricted their
movements. It was upbringing that prevented
Arbogast from seizing power in the Western Empire,
although it was virtually in his hands - he was, after
all, General of the Army - for, according to the adats,
he had no right to be Emperor since he was not born
into a ruling family. He did not have God's blessing to
ascend to the throne.
The Europeans quickly seized upon this
vulnerability of the Turkis - their bent for remaining
true to the Word of God, and to the law. The nobility
of the Turkis has served to their detriment ever since,
and their enemies have exploited this masterfully.
Unafraid, the rulers of Rome and Byzantium drew
the Kipchaks closer to themselves, entrusted their
safekeeping to them and heeded their counsel. It did
not cost the state much to keep the Turkis around. The
steppe had taught them to value little things.

It is true that even after taking the Kipchaks into

their service, neither Theodosius nor any of the
emperors who followed him were able to achieve the
peace they sought within the Empire. On the contrary,
disorder became more and more frequent. However,
the people from the steppe did not start it: the real
reason was the intolerance and arrogance of the
Romans themselves. Centuries of dominion had
corrupted them.
Though they had become Christians, the Romans
didn't necessarily love their neighbours; this was
especially true when it came to their Turkic-speaking
fellow citizens. Here, both the Emperor's edicts and
all attempts at persuasion were useless.
They were gripped by a mindless hatred. They no
longer wanted to serve in the army and deliberately
disfigured themselves in order to avoid having to
serve. Their protectors, the Turkis, who did nothing to
spare themselves hardship, became objects of ridicule.
The Romans openly had as little compassion for them
as they had for their slaves. They became the butt of
jokes. Poets composed bawdy yarns about them, each
one worse than the last. Even when the Emperor
spoke of the Empire's peoples as being "equal, and
bound together by a single name", malicious laughter
could be heard.

How else can one understand such words as:

"Those two-legged beasts! They're unbelievably
hideous and disgusting. They look like those stumps
that stand like idols around bridges...." Or: "Just like
dumb animals, they can't understand the difference
between what's true and what isn't...." Rome's
aristocrats even demanded that the Kipchaks either be
driven out of the Empire or be turned into slaves.
Of course, these threats were nothing more than
posturing by the weak. By the 4th century everyone
understood that the Turkis were an integral part of
Europe, while Europe was the only homeland their
young people had ever known. To change this was
beyond anyone's power.
After the Emperor Theodosius's death, his sons
attempted to abolish the "customary gifts to the
army". All their efforts were in vain: the first
generation of Latin Turkis - thousands of them! - had
been born. Of course, no one would allow them to be
turned into slaves. After all, their fathers were far
from the weakest members of society.
However, the explosion finally came; and trouble,
when it appeared, crept up unnoticed. It all began in
the waning days of 406 - on December 25, the
grandest Turkic holiday, the Day of Tengri. The
Romans could think of no better present than the
massacre of the wives and children of the Kipchaks
serving in the Imperial Army. As day broke, the
executioners' axes began to sing. It was they which
would hurry the pace of events.
Having drunk - to the dregs - from the cup of shame
and humiliation, the Kipchaks rose up. A civil war
broke out in the Western Empire. It was headed by
Khan Alarih, a man who had no liking for prolonged
parleys.
He laid siege to the capital. The city, having in the
meantime come to its senses, begged for mercy.
Senators and the aristocracy formally apologized to
the Kipchaks; they paid them generously in gold to lift
the siege. However, it all happened again a year
later… As if on purpose.
In 410 the Kipchaks laid siege to Rome for the third
time. This time, no one believed the residents' lies,
and the city was taken. The warriors went on a
rampage and sacked the city in retribution.
Hostilities threatened to engulf and destroy Roman
society, but this did not happen. But there was a wise
man among the Romans, one who had understood for
the three decades prior to the outbreak of hostilities
that it was impossible to turn two diverse peoples into
one. However, if they could be united by a common
faith, a new nation would appear.
The idea was suggested to him by the Kipchaks,
their clergy, and the Turkic word katylik (ally). The
Catholic doctrine, or Catholicism, was born. This was
the outstanding idea with which modern Western
Europe began.
This wise Roman's name was Damasus I. He was
Bishop of Rome from 366 through 384. He was de
facto the first Pope.

Katylik Means Ally

Prior to the 4th century, there was no Church in

Rome with a population of about 300,000.
There had been a particular sect there since the 1st
century AD, a few dozen people who would gather in
the city's catacombs. They were later called
Christians. They lived according to the laws of the
Jewish faith: they prayed in synagogues, celebrated
Biblical holidays, and practised circumcision. For the
average Roman, "Jews" and "Christians" were one
and the same.
This was particularly characteristic of Early
Christianity. It was special. The sect's members called
themselves "atheists" (their word!): they did not
recognise the gods, did not have churches in which to
worship and knew neither icons nor the symbol of the
cross.
The authorities feared these non-believers and
subjected them to persecution.
The word Christianity first appeared among the
Greeks at the end of the 3rd century. It became well-
known as a religion at the beginning of the 4th
century in the Caucasus, in Derbent. It was then
recognized in Europe and the lands of the Near East.
Since antiquity, however, in Rome itself, only Rome
has been considered as the cradle of Christianity. This
has always been so, since this is what the Catholic
doctrine proclaims. It also names the Bishop of Rome
as the First Clergyman of the Christian World,
declaring him Pope.

Curiously, the Romans also learned the word

"Pope" at the beginning of the 4th century: the earliest
such inscription yet discovered can be found on the
walls of the Roman catacombs of St. Calixtus. It is
true that he is, for some reason, considered to be
Greek, although they had no such title.
The authors of the Catholic doctrine were
distinguished by an inexplicable logic in literally
everything. It rarely coincided with reality; instead, it
ran counter to it. This, however, did not seem to
bother anyone. This was because Rome was, at that
time, greatly worried by the successes of the Greeks.
Byzantium had, under the pretext of fighting for
Christianity, begun to conquer the Near East, with its
rich cities and lands. The Romans wanted to reply
somehow, to think of something - anything! - they
could do. However, they were lacking in military
strength. Thus, the politicians clothed in the robes of a
bishop got down to brass tasks.
The idea was simple. Adopt Christianity, become
allies of Desht-i-Kipchak, and get what they wanted
with the help of the Turkis.
This is why they, having first heard the Turkic
word katylik from the mouth of the Byzantine
Emperor Theodosius, understood it in a completely
different way. The word suggested to them the idea of
an alliance. Proof of this can be seen in their inviting
hordes of Kipchaks to settle in the Western Empire
(and not in Byzantium!) in 382. This was carefully
calculated and considered. A decision had to be made.
The Turkic patriarch Ulfila approved the Romans'
idea, having seen in it a way to reconcile the Kipchaks
and the Europeans. This was recognition of
Catholicism by the Great Steppe.
The first step was successful. As Europe progressed
farther, it began to speak of Arianism - a new
teaching. It purported that the Turkis' religion was an
"erroneous" part of Christianity. On the surface, of
course, this was confirmation that nothing at all had
changed. Meanwhile, however, a great deal was
different: the words acquired the strength of a sword,
while policy - the word - having displaced the army,
moved forward.
The essence of Catholicism is hidden in the world's
secret changes.
Change - but not by ourselves. Kill - but not by
ourselves. It was not a new faith that was born, but a
policy that would be the essence of the Western
Church for centuries to come. It simultaneously both
was and was not; for it remained secret. Hidden from
the eyes and ears of the unordained: say one thing and
do another.
From this time on everything that happened in
Europe would seem accidental.

Bishop Damasus became Pope when he was an old

man already. He lived out his life in Rome. From the
first days of his papacy he was surrounded by
Kipchaks, since they were the only ones he genuinely
trusted. It was they who instructed him in the
mysteries of the faith of the God of Heaven. At that
time, there simply were no other teachers. Nor could
there have been.
This is the origin of the Church's famous adage,
"Light comes from the East." It entered into its
everyday use for all time.
The greatest writers and scholars of that time were
part of the Pope's retinue; they were then called the
Doctors of the Church, its Founding Fathers. It was
"with their words" that the Pope spoke. It was at this
time that the first holy books by which Catholics live
today were written.
Unfortunately, the names Basil, Gregory Nazianzin,
Hieronymus and Ambrose mean little to today's reader
- about as much as the Bishop Augustine's name.
Legends have grown up around these prominent
thinkers. But the works they penned no longer exist:
they were burned by the Catholics themselves as they
destroyed all traces of the Turkis' presence in Europe.
However, if one thinks about it: who were these
people who taught the elements of Turkic spiritual
culture to the West? To their belief in God? Their
great achievement was linking the Cult of Tengri with
Jesus Christ.
If they were not Kipchaks, who were they? There
were, in fact, no other transmitters of the secret
teachings at that time. In any case, they came from a
milieu which had little, if any, knowledge of either
Greek or Jewish culture.
Europe turned towards the East since light came
from the East.
True, the works they had actually penned
themselves were burned, and their biographies were
rewritten. But something of their writings was
preserved. They can be found in the Churches that had
no connection to either Rome or Byzantium. This is
the Turkic spiritual legacy, with which Europe had
nothing to do. It could be learned only from Altaic
teachers.
The ancient Christian books were, as a rule, written
in Turkic. Religious services in the churches of the
4th, 5th and 6th centuries were always held in Turkic.
It was the holy language of both Europe and the Near
East. There are texts that are more than 1,500 years
old; they are cared for as holy relics, as, for example,
in Armenia.
At that time, only the Turkis had broad knowledge
of the God of Heaven. There was no lack of scholars
or philosophers among them. It is a tradition of faith
that comes from the dim mists of antiquity. From the
Altai. From its monasteries. Even Herodotus
mentioned the spiritual wisdom of the Turkis-
Scythians. He was amazed at the depth of their
culture. In the 1st century, Khan Erke (Kanishka)
demonstrated this brilliantly to the East, when the
Buddhists adopted the rituals and philosophy of the
faith of Tengri at their Fourth Convocation. A new,
northern branch of Buddhism was born.

Another fact that speaks volumes is especially

curious.
The self-satisfied Romans never bothered to learn
Greek, due to their contempt for the Hellenes. The
Greeks responded in kind. In this, however, the
Kipchaks excelled: there were no better interpreters in
Europe.
In the art of translation, Hieronymus - a Danube
Turki, descended from the very first group of Turkis
to cross into Roman territory - was beyond compare.
Having adopted Christianity, he became one of the
Pope's closest advisers and devoted himself to the
editing and translation of the holy books from Turkic
into Latin.
That's it! From Turkic into Latin.
His translation of the Holy Scripture (The Vulgata)
was the seed from which the Christian literature of
Western Europe would grow. To this day, the original
texts are kept in the Vatican Library. They were
brought to Rome from Desht-i-Kipchak; or, more
precisely, from the Don.
The Vulgata (which literally means "the simple" or
"the people's" [writings]) was not even a translation. It
was more. It explained to simple people, that is, the
Romans, the gist of the Holy Scripture in language
understandable to them. In other words, it was
intended to enlighten them, and turn them into
cultured people.
Or consider this fact. At that time, Milan, which
was served by the Bishop Ambrose, was considered
Western Europe's leading (and perhaps only) city of
science and art. People used to flock to hear Ambrose
preach: he would hold throngs of hundreds
spellbound. Through Ambrose's efforts, Milan was
transformed into a city where the Turkic language and
Turkic ideas were held in especially high esteem. It
was a Turkic city; hardly any Romans lived there.
It was under pressure from this "furious bishop"
that the Emperor was compelled, in 381, to move his
residence from Rome to Milan and to outlaw pagan
worship in the Western Empire. In other words, he
acted against traditional Roman culture.
The Latin Kipchaks served the Catholic idea
faithfully. They sought a union with Europe, their new
Homeland, and became Catholics for the glory of
Tengri.

At the beginning of the 5th century, another event

took place in the Western Empire, one that was also
connected with the Kipchaks. In 402, they stripped
Rome of its status as capital, and declared Ravenna to
be the main city of the Empire.
The city had certain advantages over Rome: it
would be difficult for any enemy to assault, since it
was surrounded by swamplands. The only access to it
was by sea. The new capital was built in the traditions
of Turkic architecture, as no Romans lived there -
only Kipchaks.
The city was distinguished by the domes on its
churches and its Eastern-style mausoleums decorated
with blue mosaics. Especially distinctive was its
famous baptistry, where Christians were baptised.
Octahedrons and cupolas - marks of Turkic
architecture - could be seen everywhere.
These innovations were also an indisputable result
of the Great Migration; from them, a new style of
architecture, the gothic, would come. Now, with the
arrival of the Turkis, European cities would be built
and decorated in a completely different way.
The New Romans

In 411 the Roman Army was commanded by

Constantius, a man of amazing gifts. His ancestors
were Danube Turkis. He was not a born soldier; he
was a born politician. He was a wise politician such as
Rome had never seen.
This is what the Greeks wrote about him: "This was
a man with huge eyes, a long neck and a massive
head, which he would bow forward to the neck of the
horse he was riding.... At banquets, he was so
charming and witty that he even rivalled the jesters
who lounged about his table."
Interesting…. A horseman who rode in an almost
Turkic pose. With the appearance of a Kipchak. With
the blood of a Kipchak. With the habits of a Kipchak.
With jesters at banquets. Yet already a Roman. A
New Roman.
Ancient Rome was in those years becoming a
bilingual city. Its morals were changing before the
eyes of the current generation. Everyday life, people's
thoughts, their desires and behaviour - everything was
new. Everything in the Eternal City was changing
under the influence of the Turkis.
Constantius won glory as a military commander in
Gaul. With a small number of troops he smashed the
army of the Gauls. However, this battle was nothing
more than a fleeting episode in his life. The
Commander-in-Chief wasn't worried about the army;
it was in politics that he saw the key to his military
successes. This was something absolutely new for
militaristic Rome - something quite surprising.
In 413 Constantius enticed several large clans from
the Turkic Horde - the Burgundi - into the Empire. He
settled them on lands in modern-day France. There
they founded a city on the west bank of the Rhine.
They were designated foederati, and a new Kipchak
land soon appeared in Western Europe - Burgundy.
Constantius pursued his policy with the help of the
migrants themselves. He was successful. He
understood that the Empire needed Turkic allies, not
Turkic enemies. The wisdom of the military
commander was manifested in this: he did not call for
war, but for cooperation for the common good.
Negotiations with the Khan Ataulf, who was then
leader of the dissatisfied Latin Kipchaks, were
successful. He was persuaded to stop the civil war.
This was done in such a way as to transfer the Latin
Kipchaks' wrath against Spain; there they found glory
for both themselves and the Empire.
It was they who founded Catalonia, yet another new
Turkic land (the name, incidentally, comes from the
Turkic word katyl, "to join").
The conquerors of Spain returned home in honour.
Even the quarrelsome Romans greeted them as
national heroes. They were also granted the status of
foederati. In 418 the Empire designated the city of
Toulouse as their capital. This was a true celebration
of the Latin Kipchaks' recognition.
The Church held Constantius' diplomatic victory in
high esteem. It understood sooner than anyone else
that the Kipchaks had come to Europe to stay, and
now they were the continent's main political and
military force.
On February 8, 421, the people of Rome awarded
Constantius the crown and the title of Emperor of the
Western Empire. He was neither the first nor the last
Turki to become a Roman emperor.
Unfortunately, his life was cut short seven months
after his coronation. The cause of his mysterious death
has never been established. However, Byzantium
almost certainly had a part in it. Not only had the East
vigorously opposed the ascension of a Turki to the
imperial throne, it feared the Western Empire growing
stronger.
Valentinian, Constantius' son and heir to the throne,
was at this time not even five years old; his mother,
Galla Placidia, a strong and devout woman, therefore
assumed power in his stead.
A Roman by blood, she had suffered a great deal at
the hands of the Turkis, and hated everything Turkic.
Mixed marriages had by this time already come
into fashion. They were called "the fruits of
Catholicism". These "fruits", however, turned out to
be quite bitter, since the Turkis who married Romans
were forced to change their way of dressing and their
names; this was a condition of their getting married.
The Church drew up lists of names for them. On the
surface, a quite inoffensive matter. All the names,
however, were Greek and Hebrew, and occasionally
Roman - never Turkic. This is why true Turkic names
are rare in European history.
A name is the sign of a people, its tamga. It is clear
and understandable. The names Napoleon or Homer
convey entire epochs. This is not true of the European
Turkis. Even Attila was not the general's real name; it
has come down to the present day distorted - or, more
precisely, as pronounced by the Romans.
The Latin Kipchaks' children grew up as Catholics
and as Romans. They, of course, were not forbidden
to speak Turkic or to observe Turkic customs and
holidays. However, neither were they encouraged to
do so.
Such rules were introduced by the Church - rules
with double standards, aimed at inculcating duplicity.

From the marriage of a Danube Kipchak and a

Roman noblewoman came a handsome boy, who
entered European history with the name of Aetius. A
most talented individual and a Roman hero, Aetius
grew up among Kipchaks. The son of a magister
equitum ("master of the cavalry"), he, according to the
custom of the steppes and against the rules of the
Church, was handed over to a Turkic family to be
brought up in their traditions. This old Altaic custom
is called atalyk, or "fatherhood". The boy learned a
great deal while living among the steppe dwellers.
Aetius grew up a cultured man, one familiar with
the customs of many of the Empire's nationalities. His
son was brought up by Attila himself; the latter called
Aetius his brother for many years. Because of this, it
was easy for him to live among both his enemies and
his friends. He even almost became Emperor of
Rome, but was prevented from doing so by Placidia,
the tigress sitting on the throne.
This woman did not recognise the ideas of
catholicism, and was a zealous advocate of war. It
wasted no time in returning to the Empire. Once
again, the country staked everything on the army. And
it suffered a string of defeats. It was therefore felt
especially hard in 429, followed by a new civil war in
the Empire.
Everything came full circle. The people's
dissatisfaction exploded with new force. Their fragile
world was completely disrupted.
The Latin Kipchaks were then being led by Aetius.
With the help of his allies from Desht-i-Kipchak, he
decided the outcome of the civil war in a single battle.
The young general's authority grew with each passing
day. Envoys from the provinces came to see him, and
officials reported to him - to him, not to the juvenile
Emperor, and not to the bellicose tigress sitting on the
throne.
An oppressive dual power ruled the Empire; this, as
is well known, does not last long. A new civil war
stood on the threshold. The Byzantine Emperor
wanted to seize the moment and meddle in events. He
wasn't able to, however; things turned out quite
differently.
A third force made itself known: the Kipchaks of
the young Turkic states of Gaul and Catalonia. They
were led by Khan Gaiseric. He, as one chronicler
wrote, "had a sharp mind, despised luxury, loved to be
comfortably off, was sparing with words, and had an
unbridled temper." In a word, he was a Kipchak with
a capital "K".
His name inspired fear in all who recalled the
invincible son of Tengri - Gheser.
Quietly, with a minimum of talk, he smashed the
combined armies of the Eastern and Western Empires.
He then turned his gaze towards Africa, and took the
remaining Roman colonies there, which provided the
Empire with grain. In 439, Carthage, the largest city
in North Africa, became his greatest prize.
No one expected such a sharp change; the world
had turned upside down. The New Romans had
shaken the Empire to its very foundations: its navy,
army and cities were now in their hands.
Aetius, once again with the help of Desht-i-
Kipchak, nevertheless clung to power: he ruled for
almost twenty years on behalf of the Emperor, and
was Attila's long-time friend. He never actually
became Emperor, though, since the Empire's fate was
foreordained: this child of antiquity had to die; death
was already staring it in the face.

Europe after Attila

The blow from the Latin Kipchaks was devastating.

But Attila would still have the last word. A new
Europe awaited him: the East and the West were to
engage in a duel to the death. This would mark a
turning point in the Great Migration of the Peoples. It
would be Attila against everyone, and he would win.
The Turkic Steppe would then become the Great
Steppe.
This is exactly what happened. Attila's horsemen,
under the banner of Tengri, scythed through the lands
of the Empire; even Pope Leo I fell to his knees
before them. "My greetings to you, O Scourge of
God," said the Pope to Attila. The Roman Emperor
gave him half the imperial treasury to supplement the
subsidies that Rome was paying the Turkis every year.
It was then that the highest mountains in Europe
received their current name: the Kipchaks named
them in honour of Attila - from the Turkic word alp,
meaning "hero" or "conqueror". To this day they
remain the Etzel Alps - the "Alps of Attila".
The headquarters of the Desht-i-Kipchak ruler was
located in the Alps, apparently somewhere between
the present-day cities of Dawo and Innsbruck. Or it
may have been in the Tyrol, which is so reminiscent
of the Altai.
Attila's time was the peak of the Great Migration of
the Peoples, its crowning moment, its triumph. This is
when the Middle Ages truly began. Nearly every
second European was an alien who spoke Turkic. This
means that nearly every second European today is a
Turki by blood.
No one could defeat General Attila.
However, Attila the man was defeated. He brought
this about himself, when he left behind 184 sons. (No
one thought to count his daughters.) Such
indefatigable love is disastrous for any family. It is
especially disastrous for the family of a ruler.
In 453, following Attila's untimely death, his sons
started carving up his empire. However, they didn't
quite know how to go about it. Among them were
both Romans and Byzantines (the sons of European
mothers) who did not recognize Turkic customs. They
began to fight among themselves. They cast the die
and refused to realise what they were doing; in the
process they lost the freedom-loving clans and tribes
of the Kipchaks.
They divided a free people like slaves.
Khan Ardarich, Attila's friend and devoted adviser,
and a greatly respected man, was the first to revolt.
Unwilling to suffer insults, he took up arms. However,
it was too late: the war of Turkis against Turkis had
begun.

Having defeated every army on Earth, they should

have been able to defeat themselves. This was the
only way the Great Migration could end. The war of
Kipchaks against Kipchaks was inevitable.
The reason, of course, lay not in Attila's children,
but in civil strife and human nature. If a people does
not feel kinship for itself, it dies. This is a
fundamental law of nature.
A brother ought not to forget a brother in either a
moment of joy or a moment of sorrow, however bad
he might be, or it is all over. There is first the slow,
agonizing death of the family; then the clan; and then
the nation.
The internecine warfare of the Turkis lasted
throughout the Middle Ages - hundreds and hundreds
of years. Clan turned its back on clan, family on
family. Life divided the communities of Kipchaks into
new peoples, altered their names and languages and
led them to deny their ancestors and their own history.
Brother forgot brother; brother murdered brother.
What could be more horrible or torturous for a
people?
This was a war without rules and without winners.
This, however, is what is called "life". Europe's
current culture is the result.
In destroying the Ancient World, the Kipchaks
destroyed themselves, their unity and their society.
They were slowly being reborn. Their children grew
up alongside another culture and another people,
although they, too, spoke Turkic.
In changing their names, in changing their clothes,
the people themselves changed imperceptibly. They
didn't intend to, but they changed nevertheless. They
became strangers to themselves, their ancestors and
their own Great Steppe. Of course, no one noticed this
at the time; no one bothered to think about it. Life
followed its normal course. However, everything went
just this way - unnoticed.
Kipchaks also lived on the Dnieper, on the Don, in
the Caucasus and on the Yaik. However, they lived in
an old-fashioned way that was truer to their previous
life and preserved the traditions of the Steppe. This is
why they had remained unaffected by deep change,
although, of course, they, too, had already made many
more changes in their ways of life than, for example,
the Altaians, the Khakass and the Yakuts.
Thus, in creating a new culture, the Turkis
themselves perished. They burned out like a flaming
candle. In lighting the way to the future, they made
themselves casualties of progress. This was the source
of their losses and gains - the loss of their former
unity.

Of course, not only the Kipchaks were reborn in the

Europe of the Dark Ages, but the Greeks, the Romans
and the Celts as well. In getting used to their new
lives, they too transformed themselves and their
habits. The Europeans became the New Europeans:
for them, the world had become a gigantic melting
pot, where different cultures simmered together. It has
never been otherwise.
The histories of the Kushan khanate, Byzantium
and Italy are all proof of this. Without the Turkis, the
Greeks would never have created a flourishing
Byzantium - just as, without the Persians, the Turkis
would never have created the magnificent Kushan
khanate.
However, as ancient wisdom teaches, in going after
what is not yours, you will lose what is. One must
adopt the ways and things of others, but carefully and
intelligently.
Of course, the civil strife that swept over Europe
following the death of Attila could be labelled as
wars, but a "dialogue of cultures" would be better.
These were the politics of the Middle Ages - the
politics that were creating a new world.
The Kipchaks were among its creators. In Europe
today, the Turkic influence can be seen no less than
the Roman or the Greek. This was the nation that
defeated the Great Roman Empire; it gave its people
the faith of the God of Heaven along with the gifts of
its knowledge, architecture and literature. One cannot
help but notice the obvious.

After the death of Attila, it would have been better

had the Western Empire died a quick death. It already
saw nothing other than disgrace. In 454, the Emperor
Valentinian had Aetius put to death. Aetius'
comrades-in-arms, however, promptly murdered the
ungrateful emperor. In response to this Khan Gaiseric
took Rome and pillaged it for two weeks.
From this time on the Kipchaks did whatever they
wanted within the Empire.
Khan Ritsimer, once he had become commanding
general of the army, imprisoned and removed from
power Roman emperors as if they were nothing but
boys. He openly mocked them; he changed the
"master" of the throne ten times in 15 years. He
himself could not take the throne because of his
origins, but all power was effectively in his hands.
Orestes, a former confessor of Attila's, replaced
Ritsimer as commanding general. He was an entirely
different person. Violating the adat, he named his own
son Emperor; the latter took the name Romulus
Augustulus.
This Turki was the last of the Western of Roman
emperors.
In 476 he was overthrown by the Kipchaks
themselves, who saw the young man's reign as a
violation of the laws of Heaven. This was done in the
name of the holy traditions of the Altai by Khan
Odoacer, who declared: "The Empire abolishes the
title of Emperor." With this, the name Italy acquired
its own, true meaning: ytala, in Turkic, is the
imperative of "to abolish". An embassy was
dispatched to Byzantium, and with it the crown and
other imperial signs of rank that had outlived their
usefulness. Thus ended the history of Ancient Rome.
Thus began the history of Italy.
The Near East and the Turkis

From the 4th century on, the Greeks and their Church
determined European policy. Church patriarchs set its
course. They would do anything, so long as they could
control the Mediterranean - so long as they could rise
in stature. But how?
How does a scholarly theologian gain renown?
How does one raise the stature of the Church?
Through their deeds and knowledge. However, the
Greeks lacked both of these. The Greek Church lived
under the patronage of the Imperial Court. It was part
of the state and a lever of power; no more. It had been
this way since the time of the Emperor Constantine,
and would continue to be forever.
Like Rome, the Greek Church demanded no
ideological questing. It did not have to worry about
itself, the health of society, or the nation's future. This
was done by the secular authorities. The Church was
merely another crown - a decoration for the Emperor.
The contented Greek patriarchs feared anything
new; neither did they want to hear about any Catholic
doctrine. They watched out for themselves - change of
any kind frightened them. However, the only real
constant in life is change. It is always unexpected.
Change, of course, did come to the Mediterranean.
It could not help but come, along with the Great
Migration of the Peoples.
Priests from Derbent were the first Kipchaks to
arrive. They were both horsemen and holy men. With
their help, the Caucasus became the spiritual well-
spring of Syria, Palestine, Egypt and North Africa.
Word of the omnipotent God of Heaven spread
swiftly. People began to hear a new word: Tengri.
Who were these priests - Turkis? Or were they
perhaps of some other nationality? We do not know.
However, it was they who brought the faith of the
God of Heaven to these lands. It was they who opened
the pagans' eyes, who spent many long hours winning
them over. Finally, it was they who buried their
leaders in ceremonial mounds, along with their horses
and weapons - just as was the custom in the Altai. The
royal burial mounds in North Africa have become
longed-for finds for modern archaeologists.
Are the geographic names in which the name of
Tengri can be discerned mere accidents? He was
called Dongar or Dangri in Abyssinia, the Sudan and
Egypt. From these flowed the Blue, or Heavenly,
Nile. Surprising, isn't it?
The burial mound finds confirm that the word
Kipchak was once synonymous with the word holy in
the Near East. The new culture of the Dark Ages was
not planted here with the sword, but through the Word
of God. It was brought by the priests from Derbent.

For a long while, historians knew practically

nothing about the Near Eastern pages of the Great
Migration's history. Its events were surrounded only
by legend. In December 1945, however, in the ruins
of an ancient village (now known as Nag Hammadi),
Egyptian peasants stumbled upon some skilfully
hidden papyrus scrolls. Scholars then arrived to
confirm what was one of the most spectacular
archaeological discoveries of the 20th century.
One of the world's most ancient libraries had found
some new readers.
Each scroll turned out to be a complete book. They
are now kept in the Egyptian (National) Museum,
Cairo. These manuscripts were written in the 4th
century. They contain references to the God of
Heaven and are devoted to the spiritual life of the
Dark Ages. The veil of mystery covering the past has
been, it would seem, lifted somewhat.
The history of the Coptic Church has also told
scholars a great deal. It is renowned for its antiquity
and for the fact that, although they call themselves
Christians, the Copts profess faith only in the God of
Heaven (Tengri).
To this day, the Copts preserve their traditional,
ancient orders of service - the ceremonies taught them
by Turkic priests. Derbent was previously a holy city
for the Copts; it was there that their faith - or, more
exactly, their school of life - began.
Just who are the Copts? They are Egyptians who, in
325, refused to recognise Greek Christianity. They
rejected it as incorrect. From that time on - as though
life itself demanded it - the Copts became the
guardians of Turkic spiritual values.
This was apparently when they acquired their
current name of Copts, which in Turkic meant "they
have been elevated", or "the elevated ones". They now
number around one and a half million members and
watch stubbornly over their faith.
There are still several other such religious
communities in the world today. They, like lost oases
in the desert, live according to their own ways. There
is really no way to approach them.

From ancient times, Egypt has been renowned for

its remarkable culture - not for its pharaohs, and not
for its pyramids. Also, for the Academy in
Alexandria, which was always its main treasure. It
gave the ancient world some of its most famous
scholars: philosophers, mathematicians, astronomers,
physicians and orators. It was the centre of culture for
the entire Mediterranean.
Aspiring scholars did not go to study in Greece;
neither did they go to Rome. They went to
Alexandria, where they were able to acquire a higher
education. It was there that they acquired their
erudition.
The Egyptians adopted Christianity at the
beginning of the 4th century, along with the
Armenians, Albanians, and Iberians. More than
anyone else, they were ready for the new culture that
the Great Migration of the Peoples was bringing to the
world. The theology of the God of Heaven became for
them the height of knowledge.
Then - once again, from the Turkis - "Arabic"
writing appeared in the Near East. It was in fact an
ancient Turkic script, their common cursive. In the
Ancient Altai, it was written with the help of goose
quills or pointed sticks. For non-cursive text, the
Turkis used runes. These were carved on mountain
slopes and could be read from a distance; the cursive
was used for writing dispatches, letters and poetry. It
was read from right to left, or from top to bottom.
The ancient Turkic cursive was later known as
Uighur writing. It was used in the Turkic world until
almost the 18th century.
The visual similarities of early Arabic and Uighur
script are simply amazing; one cannot tell them apart.
This has more than once left scholars at a dead end,
especially when they have found inscribed
monuments in the Urals and the Altai, that is, far from
Egypt, where Arabs have never set foot.
It never occurred to anyone that these were ancient
Turkic monuments - a written message from the
Turkis' forbears. Everyone thought that the Turkis had
no written language. This, however, was simply not
true.
In the 4th century, Arabic script could not have
been something new and unexpected for the East. For
example, they learned about it in Persia in 248 BC,
when the Arshakid Dynasty came to power. They
were Altai Turkis (the Red-haired Saks). Their first
official documents were written in this script, which
was unknown in the Western world.
The Egyptians, as is well-known, had their own
way of writing, based on hieroglyphs. This is seen
clearly on their ancient papyruses. The new alphabet
was of extreme value, since it symbolized a new
culture. In the Near East, it became a kind of sign of
Heaven. As is well-known, a new way of writing
never just appears, by itself, among a people. It must
be preceded by something extremely serious; the
reason in this case was conversion to the faith of the
God of Heaven.
The ancient Egyptian texts found at Nag Hammadi
testify to this.
Some of them were written in an unknown script, in
the language unknown to the Egyptians. Scholars
therefore were unable to read the texts with any
precision.
They were able to determine that individual
characters of this unknown, Coptic script resembled
Greek letters. There was a great deal of speculation on
this point. It was indeed speculation, since no one
could connect either the texts or the events with the
Great Migration of the Peoples and with the arrival of
the Turkis in the Near East.
On the other hand, one thing is known for a fact.
The language and script, which are incomprehensible
to modern-day Egyptians, were Coptic clergymen's
cryptography. Weren't they really Turkic?
Unfortunately, the exact answer remains unknown.
Not one Turkic expert has ever held these ancient
scrolls in his hands or had a chance to study them.
They must, however, have some traces of Turkic,
since this was the language of the clergy in the 4th
century.
The priests in Egypt later switched to their local,
Coptic language. This is what happened in Armenia
and other countries where the ancient holy books were
written in Turkic, and where services were also
originally held in Turkic, and then in the language of
the local people.
The most amazing discoveries are possible in this
area. They still lie ahead.

The 4th century was a milestone in history. The

new way of writing appeared almost at once among
the Egyptians, the Armenians, the Georgians, the
Albanians, as well as among other peoples who had
adopted the faith of the God of Heaven. This is an
indisputable fact.
The link between the new faith and the new writing
is more than obvious. It is found in the books and the
histories of these peoples. It is just that some - the
Armenians and the Georgians, for example - chose the
runic script of the Turkis as the basis of their own
alphabets, while others chose the Altaic cursive. This
is the only difference.
Much evidence of the Kipchaks' arrival in the Near
East has remained. There is the famous Church of
Alexandria, where services were once held according
to Turkic traditions. It is indisputable proof of their
presence. At the Council of Nicaea, the first
ecumenical council of the Christian church, held in
ancient Nicaea (now Iznik, Turkey) in 325, it was
named the "diocese of highest authority".
The Church of Antioch then appeared in Syria; it
baptised and united thousands of parishioners. In
Africa, the Ethiopian (Abyssinian) Church was active;
in Armenia, the Armenian Church; in Caucasian
Albania, the Albanian Church. They all followed
Turkic traditions, and were condemned for this by the
Greeks.
These churches preached faith in the God of
Heaven only, and not in Jesus Christ. They did not
reject the Son of God, but kneeled and prayed only to
Tengri. This distinguished them from Greek
Christianity.

With the coming of the Turkis, the pagan world

could be seen changing before one's eyes in the Near
East as well; it was being changed under the influence
of the new culture. This greatly disturbed the
Byzantines, who had dreamed of inheriting the laurels
of the Great Roman Empire.
In the spiritual dispute over the leadership of the
Christian world, the Greeks lost out hopelessly to both
the Romans and the Egyptians: they had no
philosophers or theologians who were up to the task.
In Constantinople, they were still relying on armed
force and curbs; this was not enough.
The imperial curbs for the clergy in Egypt and the
other Eastern churches were of no use at all. They
proved nothing; rather, they emphasised the weakness
of the Greeks.
How to force the Egyptians into line? The Emperor
Constantine continued to mull this over, but came up
with nothing better than war. True, his Egyptian
campaign ended in tragedy. Instead of trophies, the
body of the Emperor himself was brought back to
Constantinople. This happened in 337.
Then there were new wars. In 391 the Greeks
burned the Egyptians' holiest of holies: their famous
Library of Alexandria, together with its priceless
manuscripts. They hoped in this way to deprive the
Egyptian people of their main source of knowledge.
Thousands of texts were consumed in the flames, but
the Greek Christians were still unable to enforce their
supremacy.
Their swords were powerless. Even as a vanquished
people, the Egyptians refused to comply. Their
firmness of spirit was unshakeable. They began
searching for a path to freedom. Something had to
happen in the Near East sooner or later, but what? No
one knew.
War had failed to solve anything. That everyone
understood is obvious even in a letter to the Pope
from Hieronymus, a Roman papal envoy who, in 396,
visited the Near East. There he found the Kipchaks,
who had put an end to the senseless bloodshed. In his
letter, Hieronymus conveyed the horror of the
imperial soldiers before the Turkic cavalry, who
considered it degrading to fight on foot. As the papal
envoy wrote, "they refuse to walk, and if they touch
the ground in battle, they consider themselves to be
already dead".
It turns out that this was when the famous "Arab"
cavalry first appeared; the date has been established
exactly. The horsemen came from Derbent, behind
"the Iron Gates of the Caucasus", as Hieronymus
wrote. Derbent was a Turkic city; located there was a
Patriarchal See that wanted to bring peace to the
Christian world.
The papal envoy was not in the Near East by
accident: Rome had been worried about the
ascendancy of Byzantium and its quarrel with Egypt.
The Pope could not openly battle the Greeks; instead,
he chose to rely on an old rule of politics: divide and
rule.

So far, the Romans had only managed to divide. A

thick tangle of political passions was woven, and
considerable forces were gathered. They came
together at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This time,
it was not the warriors; it was politicians in cassocks
fighting over the Mediterranean Basin. Would it be
Greek or Egyptian? In its own way, the Church was
dividing up the legacy of the Great Roman Empire.
Rome silently watched the squabbling between its
former slaves.
"Whoever has God on his side, has power" - so
went the rule of Dark Ages Europe. It was followed
without question.
A reason for the council was quickly found:
disagreement within the Church. In 428 Nestorius, the
Bishop of Constantinople, said that the Virgin Mary,
Mother of God, should be called the Virgin Mary,
Mother of Christ, since God could not possibly have
had a mother.
There was, of course, some common sense in his
words. He, Nestorius, a deeply religious man, had
been seeking his own path to God; this was all fine
and well. His trouble was, however, that he, lacking
any sort of deep knowledge, placed his trust in the
authorities - the secular politicians. For example: in
order to win the Byzantine emperor over to his side,
he promised him the keys to Heaven. How, though,
could he keep such a promise?
Incidentally, very few knowledgeable Greeks were
interested in theological hair-splitting. What was
important to them was increasing the power of the
Greek Church, and with it, the power of Byzantium.

The Robber Synod and Other Assemblies

It was no accident that the city of Ephesus was

proposed for the council. The Greeks associated it
with the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, and the last
years of her life. They had always loved "miracles",
and now wanted to become the "chosen of God", in
order to, with the help of the legends, demonstrate
their leading role in Christianity.
They needed the council to be held right at
Ephesus.
The Egyptian delegation was headed by Bishop
Cyril of Alexandria. "One need not be wise; one needs
only to have faith," he had said. The Pope - who
expected nothing to come of the council; he wanted
merely to harm the Greeks any way he could - was on
Cyril's side. The Pope understood that the review of
Church teachings would be a review of world politics.
"Whoever has God on his side, has power," hung in
the air of Ephesus.
However, no theological argument materialised.
Cyril's extensive knowledge was immediately
recognised by all and held in high esteem. His
passionate speech to the assembly exposed the
ignorance of the Greeks. The age-old traditions of the
School of Alexandria made themselves felt, and the
contentious issue was settled the same day.
True, the council did not end there. The Greeks
were not mollified. They began a shouting match;
insults were traded until it erupted into a genuine
fistfight. Soldiers were called in to break up the brawl.
The Egyptians won the ecclesiastical argument, but
not the Mediterranean. They immediately began
preparing for another showdown. It was important
that they cultivate success - and find support in
Derbent, from the Patriarch of the Christian world.
It was there, in Derbent, where they heard about the
Trinity, the three manifestations of the God of
Heaven. As the Turkis said of Tengri, "He is One in
Three Faces." The Egyptians decided to bring the
Trinity to Christianity.
On August 8, 449, they summoned a new council at
Ephesus, which went down in history as the Robber
Synod of Ephesus. Things went less smoothly for the
Alexandrian theologians this time. They had
overestimated the effect their knowledge would have;
and out of disgust, the servants of the Alexandrian
Church then began beating the Greeks with their fists.
Right in the assembly hall, they smashed in the face of
the Greek Patriarch Flavian.
The "assembly fathers" were then invited to sign a
blank sheet of papyrus, where a resolution would later
be written in. Anyone who resisted was either beaten
again, or thrashed with thorn switches.
The bishops signed the blank sheet unanimously.
The Resolution of the Second Council of Ephesus,
which favoured the Egyptians, was thus produced. It
was, however, quickly overturned.

It was only in 451 that the Christians found their

Trinity. It was not, however, that of the Turkis.
Instead of the Trinity, they in fact got a duality. The
Greeks had insisted on this.
This happened at a new, the fourth ecumenical
council, convened in Chalcedon (modern Kadikoy,
Turkey) in 451. A new scandal quickly erupted as
well, but the Byzantine emperor hushed it up when he
decreed, in 452, that "[N]o one, regardless of rank or
fortune, has the right to hold public debates on
religion."
No one did any further spiritual searching
afterwards. It was hardly needed; the division of the
world was complete. The Church began to draw
everything from its "Greek roots", including the
history of Europe and Christianity.
The Greeks thus conquered the Alexandrian
Church, humiliated the Egyptians, cast a shadow on
the Turkic faith, and - most important - exalted
themselves. They were not bothered by the fact that
the "false Greek Trinity" was not accepted by the
Eastern Church; or that an uprising broke out
immediately in Egypt. They had triumphed.
The faithful heatedly protested the Greek distortion
of their religion. For several years, Palestine was in
turmoil. People there went to their deaths in the name
of the One True God, and the ground was soaked with
their blood.
Byzantium, having put the finishing touches on
Church doctrine, now conducted itself in a completely
different manner; it even stopped paying the subsidies
to the Turkis, and began to plot the assassination of
Attila. The Emperor Marcian declared smugly, "I have
gold only for my friends; for my enemies, I have
iron." He certainly knew how to charge a situation.
In 453 the open-hearted Turkis faced their first
adversity: Attila was poisoned. Thus, the Byzantine
Emperor became a new master of Europe.

The power of the Greek Church was recognised

only by the Romans; in the East, it was called
"second-class Christianity". The Near East could not
accept it: it conflicted with its traditions, and its
earlier high culture. It planned to create its own
religion - a "first-class faith".
The quest for a pure faith led the Egyptian
theologians to the idea of Islam - the religion of the
God of Heaven, but with other, non-Greek rituals.

In Byzantium during these years, "creative" thought

also was in ferment; it was, however, creative thought
of a different sort. The entire country was swept by an
undisguised wave of story-telling: they thought up
saints, they thought up "miracles". The Greeks
reinforced their own beliefs as much as they could.
This is another contribution to world culture - the
contribution of pagans.
They turned the ancient Greek god of wine,
Dionysus, a son of Zeus and Semele, into the
Christian martyr St. Dionysius. King Demetrius
became St. Dmitrius; Minerva-Pallada, the goddess of
arts, St. Palladia. Helios, the god of the sun, was
transformed into St. Ilius; and so on. A new life was
created for each pagan god, connecting them to
Byzantium.
This is how the Greek "second-class Christianity
for the common people" was. What connection did it
have with the God of Heaven - or religion in general?
The enlightened world watched in horror.

Pope Gregory the Great

The doctrine of the Trinity split Christendom. This

was not its first schism. The Egyptian Church left the
stage of world politics forever.
Rome was another matter. There, too, dissatisfaction
with the Greeks ripened. But it was not expressed
openly. The popes, swallowing their insults,
demanded the same of their congregations. They were
secretly searching for a way out. They found it in 495,
when the Bishop of Rome was, for the first time,
called "Christ's Representative on Earth".
A great deal stood behind these words: a new division
of the Church - this time into Orthodox and Catholic.
From then on, with each passing year, dissent grew
within the Church. But it grew unnoticed: Rome was
contriving to subordinate the Greeks, and thereby
restore its leadership in the world. "Whoever has God
on his side, has power"; Europe had never forgotten
this.
The honour of resurrecting Rome fell to Pope
Gregory, later called The Great. He was perhaps the
wisest man of that period and a true diplomatic
genius.
He was born in 540, into a family of an eminent
senator whose forbears actually included more than
one Bishop of Rome. From them, the young Gregory
acquired a mature wisdom far beyond his years.
Gregory trained as a lawyer and held the post of
Prefect (Governor) of Rome. He inherited a huge
fortune upon the death of his father. He was not,
however, concerned with riches and donated his new
wealth to the monastery at Monte Cassino.
Behind his back, the Governor was called a madman.

It should be noted that Europe, prior to the arrival of

the Kipchaks, had neither monasteries nor any
monastic tradition. They came to the Western world
along with the Great Migration. They were introduced
by the Turkis, who had had monasteries and monks
well before the new era.
In their language, the word abbot meant "around the
Father" (abata, they would have said), while
monastery was the first word of an ancient Turkic
prayer, the Manastar khyrza ("Forgive Me My Sins").
In the West, Bishop Ambrose (the same indefatigable
Catholic Kipchak who served in Milan) was one of
the first to use these words. Sometime after 380, he
founded his own monastery there.
The Milan monastery is famous for the fact that it was
not Christian. Only Tengri was worshipped there. It
remained untouched even by Attila, when he
destroyed the city. Obviously, this was not the only
monastery in the Western Empire; in this way, Turkic
culture took root, leaving its mark forever.
At first, the native Romans were frightened by the
monasteries: the monastic life was both alien and
incomprehensible to them. The Church did not
immediately take the monasteries into its bosom; this
happened only in the middle of the 5th century.
In 530 Benedict of Nursia founded the Benedictine
monastic order. Who was this man? No one knows for
certain. He at least lived among the Kipchaks - Italy's
new citizens - and the possibility that he himself was a
Kipchak cannot be excluded. At that time, they alone
knew the secrets of monasticism.
It is known that only the children of the "New
Romans" - the Turkis - were educated in the abbey of
Benedict of Nursia. They were then the aristocracy of
the Empire. It is also known that the monastery was
visited by Kipchak leaders (Khan Totila, for
example), who came to see Benedict himself.
The first abbeys in Western Europe could only have
been built by the Turkis. Behind them were the
traditions of the Altai and all of Central Asia. Holy
places. Hermits and prophets came there to pray,
philosophise and acquire knowledge. Archaeologists
have found the ruins of ancient Turkic monasteries.
Not just two or three, of course. In Kazakhstan, for
example, near the city of Aktube, there is the
forgotten monastery of Abat-Baitak. Such monuments
exist too in Chimkent, Semipalatinsk, and many other
places. The geography is extensive: the Altai, Central
Asia, the Urals, the Volga area - all this was Desht-i-
Kipchak. The monasteries on the holy lake of Issyk-
Kul were especially famous; the devout came here
from as far away as Catalonia. The geographical map
determined the route of the pilgrims, and it is well-
known.
Monks were usually hermits who lived apart from
other people, giving themselves up to prayer and to
learning The Truth. Among them also, however, were
the clergy - those who instructed the pilgrims arriving
at the monasteries, held services in the temple and
preached in far-flung settlements.
In Christianity, it is precisely the forms of Turkic
monasticism that have been perpetuated; there simply
are no others. It therefore emerges that Benedict of
Nursia, in founding his monastic order, was simply
copying forms that were already well-known - forms
from the Altai.
However, the Egyptian Pachomius the Great is
considered the founder of the first monastery to
follow the Turkic model. In 312, he was serving in the
army of the Emperor Constantine, of which Turkis
made up the backbone. The soldiers' language was,
therefore, Turkic. Getting to know the Turkis opened
up a great many things in life for Pachomius.
After his service was finished, he returned to Egypt
with his Turkic friends, and they formed a monastic
community. It grew in size to no fewer than 7,000
monks. Pachomius's dormitories lived according to
the strict rules of Altai monasteries. Even their dress
recalled the distant Altai: kolpaki (caps), bashlyki
(hoods) and epanchi (long mantles) made of
sheepskin.
The possibility that these monks also left behind the
ancient scrolls that archaeologists have found near the
Egyptian city of Nag Hammadi cannot be excluded.
How else can one explain the fact that Turkic words
were used in the texts and speech of the Egyptian
monks? Abata (abbot), altar, amen, artos (Easter
bread), Bog (God), bursa (seminary), Gospodi (Lord)
- literally dozens of words.
Only Turkologists know, for example, how to
translate the mysterious sarabaita found in the ancient
texts; and why, on the Coptic icons of those times, the
word apa can be found alongside the image of the
holy father, and how to understand it.
Today, few Turkis remember that in antiquity, apa
meant not just "elder sister" and "mother", but "father"
as well. The word had many shades of meaning,
including that of "father" in the sense of "priest".
Many questions remain, but there is only one answer:
the Egyptian clergymen knew a "sacred" language
that was incomprehensible to ordinary people.

The pedigrees of other Coptic clans also explain a

great deal. It turns out that the Copts called their
forbears ahmar, meaning "red-" or "fair-haired". The
legends of Egypt, Sudan and Ethiopia also tell of the
coming of fair-haired, blue-eyed strangers in the
distant past.
Who were these people, these ancient strangers who
left behind burial mounds and legends; who were
horsemen and died along with their horses?
They were neither Romans, nor Greeks, nor Persians,
nor Africans; the more so, as it would seem that no
one has ever referred to them, especially the latter, as
being fair-haired. One must conclude that, once again,
it is the question of the Kipchaks.
Since ancient times, a great many Turkic words have
been preserved in Arabic. Where did they come from?
It cannot be mere coincidence. In the Middle East, the
history of the early Dark Ages is closely tied to the
Great Migration of the Peoples. It is from this that the
very noticeable Turkic traces come.
Indicative of this is the fact that, like the rest of his
community, the monk Pachomius knew no Greek and
was not a Christian. They worshipped Tengri (the God
of Heaven) and shunned the Christian bishops. It was
only in 451 that the Greeks, having conquered Egypt,
took its monasteries into the bosom of the Greek
Church.
In those days, people in Europe spoke of the
monasteries as the Eastern exoticism - Eastern, not
Western. Outside of their exoticism, the Greeks and
Romans saw nothing in them. Once they became
Christian, the monasteries were a sorry spectacle.
They became desperately poor. No one there spoke of
spiritual quests any more.
The monastic community was slowly dying. Quietly,
like a caged bird.

This continued until Rome's Governor Gregory saw

the future of Italy and, indeed, the entire Roman
Church in the monasteries. He finally saw the light,
and the man who opened his eyes was Pope Pelagius
II.
Pope Pelagius II was a full-blooded Kipchak. As it
turned out, he was neither the first nor the last
Kipchak who had become head of the Catholic
Church. He was born into a noble family, and
governed the Church without the consent of
Constantinople. No one in Rome knew the strong and
weak points of the Turkis better than he.
Pope Pelagius was quite probably the Catholics' most
treasured gem, and the Turkis' most deadly poison. He
revealed to the Europeans the innermost secrets of the
Great Steppe. With him began the elevation of the
Roman Catholic Church and the extinguishing of
Desht-i-Kipchak. This was not, however, his dream.
Long talks between the Pope and Gregory bore
generous fruit. The Prefect of Rome - the No. 2 man
in the Empire - gave all his money to the monasteries,
then renounced secular life altogether, assuming the
Church rank of deacon. The Pope then sent him as a
papal nuncio or representative to Constantinople.
Things there could not possibly have gone better.
Once he had returned to Rome, Gregory entered a
monastery. For a long time, nothing more was heard
of him. Then, following the death of Pope Pelagius in
590, the clergy elected Gregory, the monk, to the
papacy. The Church had never seen anything like it!
The new pope, Gregory I the Great, was distinguished
by his efficient, businesslike manner. He began
managing Church affairs step by step. He first of all
brought order to his papal domains, something which
no one before him had ever done. He appointed
stewards, increased the amount of money coming in
from the land, and freed the Church from its
dependency on the state treasury. The money obtained
was not given by the new pope to the bishops, but was
spent on the needs of the Roman people, and on the
ransoming of prisoners of war. In this way, Gregory
won recognition for himself, and elevated the
authority of the Roman Church.
This was far from all that Pope Gregory did.
He gave most of his attention to the monasteries,
however, creating for himself a fulcrum with whose
help he figured on overturning and subjugating the
entire world to the church.

By this time, new nations had arisen in the lands of

the Western Empire, nations which were desperately
hostile to each other and to Italy. There had never
been calm here. These new states drew the attention
of the Pope as well. He understood that people tired of
war would listen to him and his monks. They had only
to find the right words.
The Pope sent his emissary to the King of Spain, and
conducted a dialogue himself with the warlike
Brunhild, the ruler of Austrasia (present-day France,
Switzerland, Germany and Austria). All of Western
Europe now came into his field of vision. In the centre
of it, he placed the Langobards.
Who were the Langobards? The inhabitants of
northern Italy. Kipchaks who had laid siege to Rome
more than once. A horde whose capital was Milan. A
great deal is known about them. They came to Europe
from the Altai, and were in no way distinguishable
from the warriors of Attila. They believed in Tengri.
Among the papers found to have by chance survived
in the archives of Europe, there are documents of the
Langobards, written by them in runes and cursive in
Turkic. Where have all the other traces of them (not to
mention the Langobards themselves) vanished? This
is a true mystery.
It ceases to be a mystery, however, when one studies
the deeds of Pope Gregory the Great and the rest of
the Roman Catholic Church.
In 592 having concluded a peace with the Langobards,
Pope Gregory declared the Roman Church to be a
Turkic church, and himself to be its abbot. This is a
forgotten episode in the history of Catholicism.
The Pope even learned Turkic (he didn't know Greek),
for which the Greeks dubbed him Duplicitus. A
cunning game began. Addressing the Romans, he
said: "The God of Heaven"; when he addressed the
Langobards, he said: "Tengri". The Pope acted as if he
had forgotten everything and knew nothing. Like an
innocent child, he began begging the Turkis to teach
him the secrets of the faith of Tengri.
Benedictine monks, the faithful servants of the Pope,
hurried to the Kipchaks. They easily got into the
Turkic temples - to the holiest of holies. Because Pope
Gregory tirelessly called himself "the Bishop not of
the Romans, but of the Langobards".
He also called himself "the servant of God's servants";
these were his very words.
He came to Milan as a wanderer, dressed in the cloak
of a slave. Among the Kipchaks, such cloaks were
called kapas, or chekrek kapas. Once he had bowed to
their temple, he said, in Turkic, "Here I am, the
servant of God's servants!". What would the ambitious
Kipchaks make of such a spectacle?
That they were "the servants of God", and that he was
their servant. Hardly anyone could resist such flattery;
it could certainly not pass unnoticed. The Kipchaks
believed this clever fox, and swallowed his bait.
Meanwhile, the Benedictine monks were
conscientiously earning their daily bread. The Pope
had known whom to select. Though of Turkic blood,
they were third- or fourth-generation citizens of Italy,
and Catholics. Catholic Turkis were enthusiastically
taken into the monasteries; and, in return for their
services, they were clothed and fed. The word order
was also knowingly chosen. Translated from Turkic,
the word means "gift from above"; or, "They say you
come from God". This was the origin of the monastic
orders - the faithful warriors of the Pope, the quiet
conquerors of Europe.
The Catholics who had settled in Kipchak cities didn't
burn the temples there, nor did they kill anyone. They
quickly became like kin to the Langobards.

The smile of submissiveness never left the faces of the

Benedictine monks. They sincerely thought that they
would bring peace to their lost sheep. Just one man,
Pope Gregory, knew that sooner or later, the
Kipchaks-Langobards would become accustomed to
Christ - meaning the Roman Church, as well - and,
once they had become accustomed, would forget their
own faith and cultural identity.
"God the Father and God the Son - one family", he
was fond of repeating. The more he used the name of
the Son, the more he forgot about the name of the
Father.
Christians, like "one family", worshipped alongside
the Langobards. Their places of worship were
virtually identical; their prayers and ceremonies,
almost the same. For example: until the 8th century, it
was forbidden for ordinary people to enter a Christian
church. They worshipped outside the church, next to
it. They had gotten everything from the Turkis - from
the kilisa, from the holy mountain of Uch-Sumer.
It is curious that the first Christian basilica in the West
appeared in 313, after the Kipchaks' victory over the
Roman army. There was no altar inside, but the
builders oriented it exactly towards the Altai. This
would become a rule of Christianity for all time. One
worships facing east, since Ex oriente lux: "Light
comes from the East".
The Catholics of these years copied many of the
Kipchaks' ceremonies. Let us consider just one, the
Church's Gregorian chant (named in honour of Pope
Gregory, who introduced it into Christian ritual).
Was this a Turkic tradition or not? There is no
question about it: the tradition was well-known even
in the ancient Altai. In the 1st century, the Khan Erke
(King Kanishka) acquainted his new allies with it.
They adopted it, along with the Turkic method of
writing music, the so-called kryuki ("little hooks", that
is, neumes - various symbols used in the notation of
the Gregorian chant). All of this has been preserved in
the history of Buddhism and in Buddhist
communities.
Sung prayers - akafisty (acathisti), irmosy (hirmoi),
kondaki (kontakia) - were the musical language of the
Turkic religion. We know this as well. The music is
impressive, especially the ancient prayer of Uch-
Sumer, where one can sense the soul of the Turkic
people.
It was to the sound of this chant that the Benedictine
monks conquered the Kipchaks with their bare hands.
They were vanquished without battle, without a fight.
Pope Gregory the Great wiped them out completely,
without a trace.
From that time on, the number of Catholics in Italy
rose sharply.

The Catholic Turkis

For over three centuries, a war for people's souls was
waged.
The Church spoke of peace, of loving one's
neighbour, of submissiveness. The most beautiful
words in the world flowed from its lips. The hostility
prevalent in Italy abated. The Kipchaks submitted
without even sensing how their lives were being
ruined; they had accepted Christ.
The hour finally came when the Langobards called the
Pope "The Greatest of God's Servants". There was
indeed a grain of truth in their words.
There were truly now fewer wars in Western Europe.
People saw this as one of the Church's achievements.
No one noticed that the free life had ended; it now
passed under the all-seeing eye of the Pope and his
overseers. The monks - the eyes and ears of the Pope -
now prowled around everywhere. Papal spies filled
the cities, and dozed not even at night. They saw and
knew about everything. The Church had achieved
absolute power over the peoples and nations of
Western Europe.
Thanks to Pope Gregory, it wasn't just the number of
Catholics that grew; their strength grew as well. All
kings and other monarchs were forced to reckon with
the Church. It had become a real power in its own
right: a state that had its own troops, gold and land,
but knew no boundaries.
Its power grew in many different ways.
For example: hardly had Pope Gregory concluded a
peace with the Langobards when he sent to their khan
as a bride a beauty named Theodelinda, the daughter
of a renowned Roman, and a Catholic. Suddenly, the
khan was surrounded by Catholics. He let them into
his home himself, although the adats (laws) forbade
Turkis to marry foreigners: according to them, one
could give one's daughter to a foreigner in marriage,
but one could not take a foreigner for a bride. Soon,
the Langobards found themselves under the authority
of the Church. They had been trapped, like flies in
honey; they had done it to themselves.
Having adopted Roman customs, they began laughing
at the "crude manners, the wild merry-making, the
gluttony and the repulsive appearance" of their
ancestors. It is so written in the documents they left
behind.
They turned away from drinking kumys (koumiss - a
beverage of fermented mare's milk) and stopped
eating horseflesh. They even changed their ancient
funeral ceremony: the Church forbade them to be
interred in burial mounds, together with their horses.
The Pope's agents had never spent time sitting on their
hands. They were always very active.
In Burgundy, the wife of the governor was converted
to Christianity, having been bought with generous
gifts. She soon brought her husband into the new
faith. The motive was really quite trivial.
Just before the Battle of Tolbiacum (now Zulprich,
Germany), the outcome of which was very doubtful
for the Burgundians, they appealed to Christ. They
emerged from the battle victorious. This was enough,
since the Turkis lived with the conviction that God
grants victory to those who have right on their side.
Thus, the Kipchaks from the Horde of Burgundians
recognised the Pope; it was Fate.
From this time on, the Burgundians began to be
transformed as well, to the point of changing their
diet: instead of horsemeat and koumiss, they had
already started eating snails and frogs. "The
frightened muses fled at the sounds of the wild
Burgundian lyre," wrote one contemporary. To put it
another way, the Burgundians began to forget the
Steppe and its burial mounds. They stopped playing
their musical instruments, the sounds of which now
irritated them.

This was, of course, no real tragedy. The Latin

Kipchaks simply could not help but become
Christians. It would have happened sooner or later.
The faith that reconciled the Europeans - old and new
- naturally took root in them. This was indeed
catholicism, in the sense of coming together.
The new faith was not foreign to them; everything in
it had come from Tengri. With each generation, it
become more and more their religion.
Of course, the Catholic Langobards continued to hold
the Romans in contempt. However, they did make
their peace with them. Their Code of Laws, which
they adopted in 643, is highly instructive. The text is
in Latin, but it says that they consider native Romans
to be their slaves. They were Kipchaks, and that
explains everything.
Strikingly, they adopted Roman law, but subordinated
it to the Turkic adats of the Steppe.
At first, the Turkis of Europe looked at themselves
and their history with trepidation. The Langobards,
having become citizens of Italy, emphasised their
superiority. This is extremely significant; it means
that their pride in themselves did not die immediately.
The Catholic Burgundians, however, cared nothing
for themselves. They cared only about their union
with the Pope, so that they could extend their power
over neighbouring nations in his name. The
Burgundians took the name of Franks in order to
distance themselves from the Turkic world, while
simultaneously getting closer to the Pope. They were
allowed to mint their own gold coins, which were
called shervans. Only the Turkis minted such coins.
This "new" people clearly had very old customs.
Kipchaks everywhere lived according to the rule
"Among frogs, become a frog yourself". It was in
their blood. They wouldn't enter "a different
monastery with their own rules". They would adopt
new ones. It was a tradition that is impossible to
explain. It's the way it was in India, in China, and in
Persia. They "became frogs" everywhere they went:
they assumed new names and literally dissolved
among other peoples. But they always remained
Turkis. Faded, colourless Turkis.
Of course, this did not mean that they completely
forgot their steppe traditions. No, they preserved
these. The Burgundians, for example, may have
"transformed" themselves into Franks, but they never
gave up their smithing; they bred their horses even
more diligently, and held races - true holidays! - with
a flourish. They also kept their right to fisticuffs - a
right of duelling, highly valued in the Great Steppe.
"Heaven forbid that a brave man should ever be
worthy of punishment, and a coward of rights," they
continued to say.
Those who had forgotten Tengri remembered his
justice.
Here is a line from a Dark Ages sage, one which
perhaps could not be said better: "A Turki is like a
bright pearl. Inside its shell, it's worth nothing. But
when it comes out of its shell, it becomes the jewel in
a king's crown."
Was it not this that led to the "disappearance" of the
Turkis in Europe? They became the jewels in other
people's crowns.

The Church diligently helped them in this. It played

on their weaknesses like on a finely-tuned instrument,
separating Kipchaks from other Kipchaks, and from
the legacy of their ancestors. It managed to do a great
deal, easily and without offending anyone.
In the 3rd century, the following was written about
this skill of the Romans: "They build altars to
unfamiliar deities in order to take over the sacred
places of other peoples and then possess their
kingdoms." It was exactly the same 500 years later.
The Church took a tried-and-true weapon from the
arsenals of Ancient Rome and won the day.
Its new weapon was an old, forgotten one, about
which the ingenuous Kipchaks knew nothing.
The greatest of minds then worked for the Roman
Catholic Church. There were Egyptians, Kipchaks and
the Romans themselves. They were all working on
one especially difficult thing: creating a new faith that
would gather all peoples into a single Christian
family.
For example: the famous Latin Bishop Dionysius
Exiguus (Denis the Little) was a Kipchak. He was a
great expert on the traditions of the Steppe and the
rituals of the faith of Tengri. At the beginning of the
6th century, he wrote The Apostolic Canons -
regulations according to which the Christian Church
lived, and continues to live to this day. Holidays,
prayers, the mysteries of faith: everything in it came
from the Turkis.
Father Dionysius translated Turkic books into Latin.
He was highly reputed as an accomplished
mathematician and astronomer: he composed the
calendar by which we live today, fifteen hundred
years later. Before this, time in Europe was measured
from the day Rome was founded.
Another Catholic Kipchak worked for the glory of the
new religion - the historian Jordanes. In 551 he wrote
the book now commonly referred to as the Getica, in
which he told of the Turkis' arrival in Europe.
Unfortunately, he also wrote much to please the
Church. He spoke out against his own people far too
much.
This was good all the same. His book showed the
morals of medieval Europe. From the
misrepresentations found in the book, it is obvious
how much the Europeans were trying to cover up the
traces of the Great Migration of the Peoples. They
clearly managed to, at least in some things.
But not in all.

The Anglo-Saxon Campaigns

Pope Gregory was indeed Great. However, even he,

"Christ's Representative on Earth", could not create a
new people. He didn't know how. Italy was neither
unified nor peaceful after Lombardy (Italian:
Lombardia) was annexed. The country would always
be divided between North and South. Different
peoples live there, although after so many centuries
they call themselves Italians and Catholics, and speak
a single language.
The Langobards were and remained Turkis. They
couldn't be made over. In 567, they launched a war
against Rome, a war that found support from
thousands of Europe's Kipchaks. Centuries of unrest
in Italy began here, in Lombardy. Their Turkic blood
has not cooled to the present day.
It follows that there was a blending of languages in
Italy - a blending of tongues, not of people. Religion
unified and reconciled them. But it could not change
the people. One simply cannot create a people. The
blood of one's ancestors doesn't die: it is passed on to
their descendants, in each and every one of their cells.
And, finally, in their souls.
Memory of the past can die among a people, but not
forever. It is awoken by the voice of blood. It turns
out that there really is such a thing; to this day, it will
not let Turkic Europe to be extinguished.

Back then, the Roman Catholic Church attracted not

just the Langobards, but the Kipchaks from the banks
of the Rhine as well. What evoked its interest? Not the
acquisition of new lands. On the Rhine, the Turkis had
found rich deposits of iron ore and had begun
smelting it. They called these lands Tering, which
translates as "something bountiful". It was this that
attracted the Church - iron. Without it, Western
Europe would have remained in the background of the
medieval world.
The Benedictine monks showed up there
unexpectedly, wishing to "unite what remained of the
Roman Empire with the youthful strength of the
Turkis, now victorious throughout the land".
Everything went precisely according to plan; by now,
they were experts.
Earlier, Celts had lived on the Rhine. They were not
an expressive people. This is how one Benedictine
monk brought news of their encounter with the
Kipchaks: the Celts "looked with surprise upon these
people who were superior to them in body and spirit".
They were surprised by the clothing of the Kipchaks,
their weapons, and especially their "firmness of
spirit".
Their surprise was understandable: the Celts
themselves wore kilts, had no knowledge of iron, and
had never seen a horse. Their lives were completely
different from those of the Turkis, but the same as the
rest of the native Europeans.
There were also Gauls living along the Rhine; they
were little different from Celts. However, the Romans
labelled the Gauls along the Rhine, as well as the
Celts and local Kipchaks living there, simply as
Germanic tribes, even though they were clearly
different peoples. In general, little was known about
nations during the Dark Ages.
The Byzantines, for example, referred to all non-
Byzantines as either Scythians or Celts. They meant,
of course, not the nation, but the population of one
country or another.
"Germanic tribes" generally meant the population of
non-Roman and non-Byzantine Europe. There were
two main kinds of peoples: forest and steppe. In
forested areas, the population lived in ways
completely different from those of the steppe. They
differed in their everyday lives, economies, languages,
religions and clothing. But most importantly, their
weapons were different. In chronicles, the "steppe
Germans" were called "Tungrys", "Tangrys" and
"Tengrys". What do these words tell us?
The Avars, Alemanni, Barsili, Bolgars, Burgundians,
Goths, Ostrogoths, Gepidae, Huns, Langobards,
Utiguri and Kurtiguri - history lists dozens of names
and dozens of "Germanic peoples". Here is a line from
a Byzantine letter of 572: "[They are] Huns, whom we
usually call 'Turkis'." Everything now falls into place.
This, of course, is not the only such line.
It seems that other "Germanic peoples" spoke Turkic,
and were not in any way different from one another.
Their language, customs and history were entirely the
same. They enjoyed smithing, fought on horseback,
drank koumiss and wore trousers; some wore blond
wigs. All these facts are well-known to historians and
archaeologists.
It is also well-known that in Saxony, the guardian
spirit was a dragon. Until the 12th century, this
emblem of the Ancient Altai decorated the banners of
the "Germans".
When historians speak of the wild "Germanic tribes",
they are frankly misguided. They don't know that the
Turkis earlier lived by a rule, according to which an
ulus (clan), upon coming to power, would give their
name to the horde. Sometimes, a horde assumed the
name of its Khan, or Leader. Sometimes, if there was
a reason to do so, they would think up a name for
themselves.
The Turkis are sharp-tongued and are true masters at
turning out apt sobriquets. The names "Gepidae" and
"Gepanta", for example, did not spring into being by
accident. There is a legend about this: it tells of how
the Goths were crossing the sea and some of their
fellow countrymen fell behind - their ship was the last
to make it to shore. "Gepid" means "lazy". There is
also an untranslatable Turkic play on words here: gepi
anta literally means "You'll dry out once you're there".
Chronicles record that "the Langobards and Avars
subsequently separated from the Gepidae".
It was quite another story with the Avars, one which is
well-known. In the 6th century, this clan fled to
Europe from the Altai, and the Great Khan sent an
army after them. They chased but couldn't catch them,
since they had hidden in the Caucasus. They then
moved on to Constantinople, and from there to the
Alps, to what is now Bavaria and its inhabitants are
called Bavarians.
Yet another example. The sons of one khan were
named Utigur and Kurtigur. After the death of their
father, the two sons went their separate ways. Their
hordes started to be called the Utiguri and the
Kurtiguri. One shaved the back of their heads; the
other, their entire heads. This was how the two
"Germanic peoples" differed from one another.
Some continued to wear their hair long, or left just
their forelocks, that is, oseledets in Turkic. The
"Germanic" Kipchaks lived the same life they lived in
the Great Steppe and built their cities the same way;
they didn't know how to build them otherwise.
Their cities live on to this day. One of them is the
famous Calais - Turkic for "fortress". It is not made of
stone but of wood, with an earthen rampart. The Strait
of Pas-de-Calais is named in its honour. The island
that it faces is called Albion in Roman chronicles, but
the Kipchaks gave it a new name: Inglend.
Why Inglend?
The prefix ing- in old Turkic words meant "booty".
Inglend - or "England" - literally meant "the land of
booty". It had been conquered during one of their
campaigns.

In the 5th and 6th centuries, the famous Anglo-Saxon

campaigns took place. It was then that two large
hordes made the crossing to the island. They were led
by Khan Cerdic and his son, Cynric (does the name
"Heinrich" - Henry, Henri, Enrique, Enrico - not come
from this?). Horsemen armed with pikes boarded their
ships, then disembarked onto the island. This event is
stamped indelibly in English history.
Legends about those times have been handed down.
A young Kipchak was walking along the bank of a
river, barely able to move his legs. Thick gold chains
hung on his exhausted body; on his wrists were
bracelets set with precious gems. The islanders asked
him, "What do you need all that treasure for?" "I'm
looking for a buyer," he replied. "I don't care what
price you pay." Then one of them said: "I'll give you
lots of river sand." The youth agreed. He gave this
man the gold in exchange for a bag full of river sand
and left. Everyone laughed after him, and
congratulated their fellow who had so easily duped
the foreigner.
The next day, the horsemen came. The villagers were
beside themselves. Then, the young man with his bag
full of sand stepped forward and began throwing
handfuls of sand along the riverbank. The islanders
instantly fell silent: they understood that it was now
his land, bought for the gold of the day before.
As was their tradition, the Turkis encamped, then built
a fortress, naming it simply Qand - the stone fortress.
No one ever disturbed them after that, since they had
acquired the land honestly.
Thus began the English pages of Turkic history.

The English Kipchaks

Much about the Anglo-Saxon campaigns has been

diligently forgotten.
For centuries tales have been spun about the bestiality
of the newcomers. Myths have arisen, one after the
other, to the point of absurdity. Today the uneducated
public understands the history of Great Britain better
than most scholars. There is too much there that has
been confused.
Britain's early history remains essentially unstudied;
the Church, which has itself fabricated the history of
England, forbade it. In the 8th century, a Benedictine
monk from Jarrow Monastery, Bede the Venerable,
wrote a book called "Ecclesiastical History of the
English People". With it began the lies that, like scum,
have covered the once-clear Thames for ever.
There is, however, another, genuinely brilliant work -
a work by the great English historian Edward Gibbon.
It consists of seven unsurpassed volumes, written in
the 18th century. Gibbon wrote of Dark Ages Europe
like no one else. He told in detail a bit more than the
Church would let him. This "bit more" sufficed
thoroughly to earn a rebuke from the Pope and his
underlings:
The past of Great Britain is so well known to the least
educated of my readers and is so obscure for the most
scholarly of them, Gibbons noted sadly.
Actually, there was no conquest of England; the
Britons themselves invited the "most wise Saxons" (as
they called the Kipchaks) to their island. They
themselves set aside fertile lands for the Saxons, so
that they might teach them how to cultivate them.
They adopted their unusual breeds of livestock. They
recognized Tengri and His cross. None of this was
forced on them.
For centuries the Turkic spirit has been diligently
cleansed from English history. The "roving Huns" that
came to the shores of Foggy Albion and became the
beloved heroes of the old English ballads, had already
been forgotten.
It was as though there had never been a preacher in
England named Aidan, who revealed to the Britons
the faith of the God of Heaven. The pastor roamed
through the English countryside with an interpreter;
therefore, he could not have been a native Briton.
Earlier, in 432, it was from his hands that the most
revered of Ireland's saints - St. Patrick - received the
cross.
It should be noted that in these years there was no
Latin cross. It was thought up a century later. At this
time, the Christians used the Turkic equilateral cross.
Such crosses can still be seen on the monuments of
Old England; they are the only ones that
archaeologists find.
This is a very important historical detail.
English people now pronounce the name Aidan
("Bright", in Turkic) a bit differently - "Eden". Let
them. However, to their honour, they have never tried
to distort the preacher's feat. They have left it
unchanged - though, it is true, without many details.
Forgotten too are the ancient burial mounds that
remain in southern England from the time of Attila,
although they haven't disappeared entirely and can
still be seen. They are exactly the same as the burial
mounds of the Altai - or the Great Steppe. In the town
of Sutton-Hoo, in the county of Suffolk, there is even
a royal burial mound, the biggest of the 15 mounds
known here.
Found there are weapons and gold ornaments.
Filigree, genuine works of art. The ornaments are
purely Turkic. Especially beautiful are the figurines of
deer. They are exact reproductions of Altai deer. It is
as though they had been brought from there. And this
was in England, the country upon which, as the
history books assert, "wild barbarians" descended in
the 5th century.
Incidentally, the word "London" is of Turkic origin. In
the 5th century, it was already telling barefoot British
boys that a great many snakes could be found down
along the river. "London" stems from the Chinese
word lung ("dragon", "snake") plus don.
It is better not to discuss here the language of ancient
Britain at all. Otherwise, we might ruin the future
holiday of the Turkological linguists who will,
perhaps, choose to study this mystery. Most probably,
the striking similarity of Turkic and ancient British
words will attract their attention. There are many such
examples. Here are some of the first to have been
found: "young" (yang); "at once" (tap); "tack" (tak);
"soul" (sulde); Eden (Aidan). Very close in meaning
and spelling are the ancient Turkic and British words
for "mode" (ton); "to cut" and "notch" (kert and kerf);
and "to thunder" (tang tung et-tang). Even the famous
Tower of London was connected with the hill upon
which it stood, the tau ("hill" or "mountain").
Could the language of ancient Britain have been a
dialect of Turkic? "That is the question!"
The Anglo-Saxons adopted Latin under pressure from
the Church, as their books demonstrate. For example,
"The Laws of Ethelbert", the earliest book in Anglo-
Saxon, was hand-copied only at the turn of the 6th and
7th centuries in the city of Kent. In it, the laws of the
Langobards and other Kipchaks are duplicated, since
the new Englishmen lived by them as well. The text is
written in runes, as in other old English books. "The
Laws of Ethelbert" then mysteriously disappeared.
Why? The reason for this is also clear.
The books of old England were burned by the Church
during the Inquisition. There remain copies, however,
which from time to time are found under the most
unexpected of circumstances. Such finds are
invaluable.
By all indicators, the old English literature was very
expressive. We know that in the poetic "Bestiary"
there are three guardian spirits: the snow leopard, the
whale and the partridge. Where did the Anglo-Saxons
learn of the snow leopard, which is found only in the
Altai? Where did they learn of the Altai customs of
indulging spirits?
Other "Anglo-Saxon" traditions are entirely Turkic.
Especially their beloved clap on the shoulder, without
which a Turki is not a Turki.
Do the forgetful English know that their traditional
game of polo (played on horseback with mallets) was
also born in the Altai long before the Great Migration
of the Peoples? Only there they played it not with a
wooden ball, but with the head of an enemy sealed in
a leather bag. It was the ceremonial game of Victory.
No, the blood of the Kipchaks did not grow cold in
the chilly veins of the Anglo-Saxons. It is just belied
by the appearance and behaviour of these people.
They're fully capable of getting hot under the collar,
and they know how to box - or how to just fight.
They even continue to drink tea with milk, like
shepherds in their tents, since this is the only way
their ancestors drank tea. They love horses and horse
racing, because no Kipchak could live without them.
In the forests of their beloved England, they hunt
foxes and deer just as the Turkis hunted - on
horseback, since they neither knew how nor wanted to
do it differently. Englishmen are also experts at
falconry. Where did the inhabitants of Albion, on the
edge of the Roman Empire, get all these things?
They are an interesting people: they guard their
traditions without understanding that these are
remnants of their earlier culture - a culture that has
been forgotten. Or, more exactly, one they were
ordered to forget.
For example, they hung on to their old monetary
symbols and coins to the very last. Their "confusing"
money, which often evoked derision, was also an echo
of the steppe era.
Thus, the English word "shilling" came from the
Turkic "sheleg", or "non-ambulatory coin", which is
also made up of twelve smaller, "ambulatory" coins.
"Penny" came from "peneg", or "small coin". And, of
course, the word "sterling" itself comes from a
monetary weight unit of the Turkis, the "sytyr". A
"sytyrling" was also equal to twelve "shelegs". All
this was exactly the same for the English.
The similarity of the Turkic word "manat" and the
English word "money" only reinforces this
observation, since they both mean exactly the same
thing.
For centuries now a bag of sheep's wool has been kept
in the English Parliament. The very same was a
symbol of authority for the Kipchaks: out in the Great
Steppe, this is what those elected as judges sat on…
And those who wear frock coats don't know that they
come from the Altai.
Meanwhile, the neighbours of the English - the Scots,
who wear kilts and love to play the bagpipes - have a
completely different way of life and cannot stand
anything "Turkic". These things are, therefore, alien to
them. Neither did the other nation of Great Britain, the
Welsh, whom the English themselves referred to as
foreigners, adopt anything Turkic. They have a
completely different way of making merry - one that
is too boring for a true Turki.
The English Kipchaks now parade about importantly
and self-confidently, like peacocks. They've forgotten
what their ancestors from the Altai taught them:
"Don't wear other people's pants; you won't be able to
cover yourself with them". This is true folk wisdom.

With Christ, the Benedictine monks dressed the

Anglo-Saxons in other people's pants, but they
couldn't cover them up entirely. They didn't make a
new people.
The monks' leader, Augustine, became the first
Anglo-Saxon bishop in 597. The power of the Church
was confirmed in England from the hand of the Pope.
It soon became known as first among the Catholic
lands. By the fourth or fifth generation, it would look
upon its "wild" forebears with revulsion. Everything
happened exactly as it had with the Langobards and
Burgundians.

The monks disembarked on the island of Tan, along

the Kentish coast. They went to the King, knowing
that his wife had secretly become a Catholic before
their marriage and had offered shelter to monks. Soon,
Ethelbert, not yet a king but still not a khan, adopted
Catholicism, and subsequently so did his subjects.
From this time forward, they carried out the will of
the Pope, "Christ's Representative on Earth". True, out
of stubbornness, other Anglo-Saxons kept two altars
in their churches: one for Tengri, and one for Christ.
This, however, solved nothing; the people's soul had
been sold.
The argument over whose altar was better went on for
a very long time; it was not settled until 663. The
Romans once again contrived to promise faithful
Anglo-Saxons the Key to Heaven, if they would keep
but one altar in their churches. This was done, and
England became Christian.
Their dual faith was kept all the same: the norm is
embodied to this day in the Anglican Church, while
the Catholic Church remains a dark shadow of
England's past.
Its stamp is indelible.

Islam

The highest award among Catholics is the Order of St.

Gregory. It is a copy of the medals of the Ancient
Altai, the cross of Tengri. Symbolic? Of course. Just
as it is symbolic that, while preserving the old Altai
traditions, the Greco-Roman Church wiped out all
memory of their origins. They did this not just in
England, but everywhere.
They did this because the old faith would have
interfered with their rule over the people.
Both the Roman Pope and the Byzantine Patriarch did
everything they could to achieve their ends. They
dragged the Turkic spiritual traditions through the
mud, while dreaming up their own, pagan traditions.
For example, things that had belonged to Christ
suddenly appeared in the churches from out of
nowhere, along with the physical remains of his
disciples. People began praying to these things. Such
"religion" is in no way different from paganism.
There was hardly any church that did not have its own
relics.
For a time this was carried to absurdity. Dozens of
heads of John the Baptist were being kept in churches.
One winemaker, having learned that the wine in his
cellars had gone sour, collected a drop from each jug
in a container and put it near the remains of St.
Stephen. The next day, the flavour had been restored
to the wine. Thus was born the "miracle" of St.
Stephen.
Pagans in the guise of Christian priests were the
masters everywhere.
The faith that was born in the Caucasus in the 4th
century was forgotten and faded into the background,
like everything else Turkic. It was being altered. On
orders from the Church, Europeans called themselves
"Christians", but they had little in common.
Differences remained. Dark Ages Europe seethed like
a volcano. All that was Turkic, Roman, Greek and
Celtic merged and melted, only to come pouring out
and cool like obsidian - glassy and brittle.
It would cool for centuries.

It was completely different in the Near East. The

church there also searched for itself, its face and its
power. Not in paganism, however, but in philosophy -
in seeking the meaning of life. The image of Tengri
glowed on the horizon; it was not overshadowed by
idols.
Any quest, as is well known, sooner or later bears
fruit. The fruit of the free thought of the Near East
was a phenomenon that would go down in human
history as the short and powerful word Islam -
teachings handed down by the Almighty.
They first learned of this in Arabia, at the same time
that Pope Gregory the Great was carrying out his
desperate attack on the Langobards. In 609 divine
revelations were made to the Arab Muhammad. They
were then recognized as new teachings from God,
while Muhammad himself was recognized as God's
Prophet.
Unfortunately, not much is known about the Prophet.
Almost nothing reliable has been preserved. His life
has become legend, made up of words and images. It
is not in the power of science to either confirm or
disprove these. This means that all might well have
been just as Moslems say:
Muhammad was illiterate. In his youth, he travelled
with caravans across the desert, then managed the
business affairs of a widow, whom he later married.
One day, he was surprised to hear distant voices.
For three years he had these revelations and told
others about them. However, no one in the city of
Mecca would hear him out: people could see no sense
in the new religion. To them, its prayers proved to be
unbearable, while tithing one-tenth of one's income
was an outrageous injustice. Paganism suited the city's
people just fine.
Alas, a new religion doesn't automatically appear in
the wake of divine revelations. Society itself
determines whether or not a religion survives, and
what kind of religion it must be.
Muhammad was recognized only by his closest
family, and they formed a community by themselves.
It grew slowly. Ten years later it had barely 100
Moslems.
Today, tens of millions of people - entire countries -
follow Islam. Interest in it is immense. Everyone
notes the mystery of its birth: Did, could, illiterate
camel drivers come up with, out of thin air, Teachings
that have no equal in the philosophical world?
There clearly is a mystery here, one to which only the
Koran can provide the answer.
The Koran is the priceless treasure of Islam, the Book
containing the Revelations and Teachings of the
Prophet. It is the Supreme Law of the Moslem. Its
completed text appeared only at the turn of the 7th
and 8th centuries, almost fifty years after the death of
Muhammad himself. Like Islam, it took time to
mature; after all, such teachings do not congeal
overnight. This is how the world ruled by Time and
the Spirit operates.
Hundreds of books have been written on the history of
Islam, but nothing is entirely clear. The theologians of
different countries view early Islam differently. They
argue about Truth and the Teachings, and adduce
arguments that contradict one another. But a religion
cannot have two histories.
As a rule, there is only one history for everything.

"Bismi-llyakhi-r-rakhmani-r-rakhim!" - "In the name

of Allah the Merciful, the Compassionate!" One's
thoughts proceed from the Almighty; as it was, it is
now and forever shall be.
In this book no one expresses doubts, but a Moslem
must believe the Koran, not people, no matter what
clothing they wear. The "Arab version" of Islam now
known (like the "Greek version" of Christianity) looks
a great deal like myth - a big myth that took shape
only by the 19th century. This is what History shows,
and History cannot be changed.
Moslems had apparently already forgotten that Islam,
in Dark Ages Europe, was called the "Egyptian
heresy". This was no accident: It was practically the
same as the teachings of the Egyptian and Abyssinian
churches. Egypt, then a colony of Byzantium, saw in
Islam a path to freedom, since "Whoever has God, has
power".
It was the spiritual traditions of Egypt and Ethiopia,
not Arabia, that became the soil of Islam.
The new faith first took root among the Christians -
people who had already recognized the God of
Heaven. The Near East no longer wanted to be the
slave of Byzantium. It needed Islam. It did not betray
Christianity - the religion of its fathers - but freed the
faith from the power of the Greeks. It preserved the
pure image of the God of Heaven, and with it drew
the people of Byzantium's colonies.
It is positively striking that the image of the God of
Heaven in "Egyptian" Christianity and in Islam were
entirely the same. It could not have been otherwise.
Religion is part of a people's culture and morality; it
does not arise in a wilderness, and it does not join a
people as one with just words - not even if they're the
truest words in the world. It is not enough to hear
divine revelations; one must understand them and take
them to other people.
Islam is the East's great creation. Its origin is Tengri,
for people first raised their eyes to Heaven two and a
half thousand years ago - to the Eternal Blue Heaven.
Islam helped Egypt and the entire Near East to obtain
their freedom. The influence of the Turkis there was
enormous. The fact that they ceased to remember this
in the 19th century does not mean that the Turkis were
not there. They were!
Let us recall one of their ways of addressing Tengri:
"Alla" (from al, or "hand") - O Giver and Taker. Only
the Turks held their palms before them and, looking at
the Altai sky, said Alla a thousand years before the
Moslems. This is how it came to be in Islam.
The Altai knew 99 ways of addressing Tengri. In
Islam too, there are 99 ways of addressing Allah.
They are the same.
"Allah-il-Allah!" say the Moslems when beginning a
prayer. "O God (Allah)! Come down to us, O Lord (il-
Allah)!" This is a pure Turkic phrase, common for a
Turkic Moslem even today. He rarely says "Allah"
with the aspiration used by Arabs when pronouncing
the word; most often, he says "Tengri" when
addressing the Almighty. Old people remember the
words of their grandfathers.
Islam teaches that Allah is the Almighty. Like Tengri.
Allah created flora, fauna and man. Like Tengri.
They pray to Allah while prostrating themselves. Like
to Tengri. How are they different? Monotheism is the
central concept of Islam. But it was the Turks who
brought monotheism to the Western world: God the
Great Spirit, the Creator of the World and All That Is
in It. There are no gods other than He.
Islam kept the angels and demons who inhabit the
realm between God and Man. The people of the Altai
had always known them. There even remains the
Fallen Angel, the lord of evil spirits - Iblis.
Nothing has been forgotten, nothing has disappeared
from the ancient faith of the Turkic people.
"There is no God but Allah," say the Moslems.
This is exactly what the people of the Altai said, word
for word: "There is no God but God." What, then,
really distinguished early Islam from the Turkic faith?
Almost nothing. Only the ritual, which the Moslems
did not have in the 8th century, and which they had to
find. It took centuries for the ritual to be established.

The Koran

The Koran is, of course, the main achievement of

Islam. A holy book, it contains the answers to all of
life's questions, even to the most difficult. How did it
come into being?
This is an extremely important question, since there
were no books on the Arabian Peninsula at all - its
people did not know writing. There were sacred books
among the ancient Turkis; the peoples of the East
were learning from them as early as the 1st century,
during the reign of the Khan Erke, and Europe would
follow. They then simply vanished. Where? Did they
really disappear?
The answer can be plainly seen in Surah 108 of the
Koran: "We gave Gheser to you as a gift, so pray ye to
The Lord…" it begins. The meaning of this verse is
deep and difficult to fathom.
The Arabs did not know then (do not know now) who
"Gheser" was, which is most striking! This
"incomprehensible word" has always evoked
disagreement and arguments among the translators of
the Koran. They even pronounce it differently -
Kewser, Kawsar. They also give different
interpretations of it - "abundance", "comfortable
circumstances".
Could the name of the Prophet of the Turkic people
been inserted into the text of the Koran if it hadn't
been known already? Such things simply do not
happen, because they are impossible. Something is
obviously wrong here: one cannot write a book if one
does not know the alphabet, and one cannot solve a
mathematical problem if one does not know the
numbers. This means that the word "Gheser" in the
Koran is connected with some very important event -
one that is now either forgotten or has been
deliberately ignored.
There are other blank spots in the text of the Koran.
They, too, will reveal their true meaning only when
the history of the Turkic people assumes its rightful
place in the history of mankind. One cannot
permanently "forget" about a people that gave the
world its faith in the God of Heaven.
The truth will triumph sooner or later, no matter what.

Scholars have long given their attention not merely to

the "incomprehensible" words of the Koran, but to the
uniquely written text itself. The Arabs did not write
this way. They had other ways of structuring phrases.
Science has concluded that the Koran is clearly not
"Arab speech".
The ancient wisdom tells us the same thing: "One
cannot hide a camel among sheep". This is completely
true.

In the Koran, for example, there are lines that coincide

with texts of the Talmud and the Bible. Is this
surprising? No; the Koran is a collection of divine
revelations. It is a work that was inspired by the words
of the Prophet Muhammad.
It took decades to compose the Koran and to polish its
verses. Dozens of books were then being translated
into Arabic: Turkic, Egyptian, Syrian, Persian,
Hebrew - books of all kinds. In them they sought the
grains of wisdom.
These translations have been dubbed "Arab
literature", but they remain translations. They were
music to the Moslems' ears, since they represented the
new culture of a new East, free from Byzantine
despotism.
One translation was titled "Gheser-efsane" ("Hasar-
afsana"), which contained Turkic fairy tales and
legends. At the end of the 8th century it acquired a
new name: "A Thousand and One Nights". Can one
then conclude that Sheherezade told her stories in
Turkic?
Sinbad the Sailor, as also becomes clear, spoke
Turkic, too, since he knew no other language…. The
science of History is surprising, indeed. It not only
uncovers great secrets, it also proves that Koran is "a
collection of wisdom, written in the language of
revelations", and a repository of "lost" treasures.
This book was not created by human hands!
Its parables and brilliant verses were the fruits of high
literature - fruits that had taken centuries to ripen.
Like the ornaments from a steppe burial mound, they
could be neither imitated nor excelled. There had
never been anything like them before in the Near East
- only among the Turkis.

The Koran is made up of verses (aiats) that, like

sparkling gems, fill its books (surahs) with light and
wisdom. Aiat is a Turkic word: ai is the imperative of
"to explain", while at means "name" or "title". It is a
phrase (or fragment of a phrase) that is read aloud in a
singsong voice.
The Turkis, as is well-known, read out their prayers
only in such a voice. This was the tradition of the
Ancient Altai.
The Koran's text itself started to be written down in
633; it took decades to complete. Hundreds of holy
pages were written; to this day not a word, not one
comma, has been changed. From whose words,
however, was the Koran composed? This is unknown.
It is known that after the death of Muhammad Arabia
reverted to paganism. The Arabs were the first to
forget their own Prophet.
Even while he was alive, they did not know him well.
It was a memorable event indeed when, in 637, the
Caliph Omar, following his victory over the Persians,
asked his best warriors to recite just one verse of the
Prophet Muhammad. No one could. Only one was
able to whisper the prayer "Basmala".
This is all that those who would spread Islam knew of
it.

It is believed that the first lines of the Koran began to

be written down from the words of an old man, the
Arab Zeid-ibn-Tabit (or Zaid-ibn-Sabit), who had
survived the Battle of Yemam. This may be true. He
was then only 22. In 651, now an old man, he finished
his work. It was not, however, the Koran.
It is also said that secretaries, who knew how to write,
were always to be found alongside the Prophet. This
is, however, highly improbable; where could they
have come from in an illiterate land? Even if it were
true, what was Zeid-ibn-Tabit doing for two decades?
Everything had already been written down before
him…. This means that what happened was
completely different.
The text of the Koran took shape closer to the 8th
century. This is a historically verifiable fact.
Everything else is conjecture which, over the
centuries, has been transformed into immutable truth.
A great deal is not understood here. In what script
could the Koran have been written? This is also a very
important question. Without an answer to it,
something remains as inexplicable - fictitious - as
before.
The so-called Arabic script was, in the early Dark
Ages, a "divine, secret text" - the writing of the
Turkis. They called it by a name which sounded very
like "cipher", or "secret code". This way of writing
was also known among Christians, but only to a select
few - the Copts. It was unknown to the Arabs. This is
why the role of the "Coptic scribe" is reflected in the
Moslems' well-known proverbs, Hadith. This was far
from accidental.
Could Zaid-ibn-Tabit, a simple man from Medina,
have known about the secret text of the Turkis?
Certainly not. What about the Prophet's secretaries?
Yes, but only under one condition: if they were
bishops from the Near Eastern Church.
They were indeed.
In 615 Muhammad, as is well known, sent his people
to the Abyssinian Church. The Prophet bade
Christians to come to him, calling them his
coreligionists. He asked the Copts to "help true
believers find piety", and to "take onto their shoulders
other concerns of the Moslems". These "concerns"
were connected with their system of writing.
This can be confirmed not just from Hadith, but from
their way of writing itself.
Scholars have established that Arabic script assumed
its present form only in the 8th-9th centuries, when
the Koran had already been written. The "divine text"
was then abolished, so that it would be forgotten. The
new Arabic script was made accessible to the ordinary
person and ceased to be a cipher.

However, a new question then arises: Were the pages

of the very first Koran - the ones penned by Zeid-ibn-
Tabit, which then mysteriously disappeared - not
written in Turkic? Was it not these that were
forbidden and burned when Caliph Omar ordered that
only the Korans written in Arabic should be used?
This is why there are no copies written down during
his lifetime of the words of the Prophet Muhammad.
They, like the text of the first Koran itself, could have
been written only in the "divine" Turkic script. They
could not have been any different.
These forbidden texts survived for several centuries,
as the Moslem Turks handed them down from
generation to generation, like relics…. It is possible
that some still exist.

The Moslems have another holy book, the Sunna. It

supplements the Koran and records the deeds and
pronouncements of the Prophet. This book was
completed by the 9th century. With it ended Islam's
era of "Egyptian Christianity", and the former's true
independence began.
The teachings of Muhammad had become a full-
fledged religion.
Not all Moslems agree with the text of the Sunna.
Those who accept it unreservedly are called Sunnites;
they are in the majority. However, this means
absolutely nothing: in the Islamic world, Shiites are
no less respected and authoritative.
The authors of the Sunna were two great Turkis, al-
Bukhari and Muslim. They most certainly did not live
in Arabia. For its depth of thought, al-Bukhari's work
was called Sakhikh ("The True Tome"). After the
Koran, there is no book more authoritative; such is the
opinion of well-known Eastern scholars.
Virtually all the greatest Moslem scholars came,
incidentally, from the Turkic world. No one knew the
teachings of Muhammad better than they. This is a
recognized fact.
With their books these people raised eternal
monuments to themselves and to their people.
The Arabians had never had people of such high
knowledge. Among them there were not even proper
clothes for the adherents of the new religion: their
robes were good only for riding on camels. The
Turkis gave them the clothing of a Moslem.
Turbans, fur hats and fezes; baggy pants and shirts
open at the neck; short black jackets (kapi) and
caftans: they arrived just in time. Of course, the
climate in the Near East is different from that of the
Altai; they, therefore, made the clothes lighter. Their
cut, however, remained the same as before - virtually
identical, in fact.
Everyone could recognize a Moslem by his new
clothes. Officials were distinguished by their long
shirts with open collars, slit down the chest, while
clergymen wore cloaks and tailasans (from the Turkic
talu san - "special honour"). All Moslems, men and
women, stood out in their baggy pants, which were
especially highly valued.
Turkic dress was firmly established in the Near East
from that time on. For example, the Caliph al-
Muktadir went to his death clothed in a caftan. These
pages of Islamic history are distant, but not forgotten.
No one knows them any more because by the 19th
century the world had changed to the Turkis'
disadvantage. They were hated by everyone, including
themselves: the Ottoman Empire, the last bastion of
the Turkic world, fell.
Earlier, however, in the 9th century, Moslems
remembered well the words of the Almighty and were
not embarrassed to repeat them: "I have an army that I
named the Turkis and placed them in the East; when I
am angered by a people, I give my army power over
that nation." Nice words.
A great scholar of the Islamic world, Mahmud of
Kashgar quoted them in his books. They contain the
entire history of the Great Migration of the Peoples.
They also tell of the apocalypse with which the
destruction of the Roman Empire began.
Here, too, is Attila, who was called the Scourge of
God; here, too, is Islam, which the Pope looked upon
as "God's retribution".
Who knows whether these memorable words contain
not just the past of the Turkic world, but its future as
well?

The Signs of Islam

Earlier, there were seven ways of reading the Koran,

and each one was correct. This means that seven
peoples (or, more likely, seven cultures) created Islam
and its traditions.
One of them brought to the religion the ritual of
circumcision; another, the prohibition against pork;
still others gave it its books, morality, architecture,
clothing and ceremonies. The contributions of
different peoples to Islam were varied, while the
Arabians were far removed from it.
What could pagans whose ablutions were even
performed with sand have contributed?
Once a year, in the spring, their tribes convened in
Mecca by the Black Stone. There the tribal leaders set
up their idols and prayed to them. With these prayers,
the New Year began. Of course, the Arabians knew
about the religious beliefs of the Jews; they were also
familiar with the fire-worshipping Persians and with
the Christians as well. They did not, however, adopt
their faith; an alien fire could not warm their souls.
A people receive a new religion when they see its
might. It has always been this way. The Armenians,
Greeks and Romans believed in the God of Heaven
only when they had seen his power.
Nevertheless, the Arabian Desert did play a role of its
own. The philosophers of the Near East selected it as
a corner of the world inaccessible to the Greeks. It
was there that they planted the saplings of the new
faith. The adherents of Islam were labelled Moslems,
or "those who have given themselves to God". People
from various Byzantine colonies together sampled the
air of freedom, but they had no common language and
no shared culture.
This is why clothing, especially at first, played such
an important role for Moslems: it was only their attire
that distinguished them from others. In adopting
Turkic fashions, they began to resemble those who
had helped them find the God of Heaven, and with
Him, their longed-for freedom.
This is the way it was.

With Islam, the first nation of free Moslems had

appeared by the beginning of the 7th century - the
Caliphate, which was not ruled over by the Greeks.
This was also a sign of freedom. Its borders soon
seemed endless and stretched far from Mecca - to the
remote edges of the lands of Central Asia, the Seven
Rivers, Mesopotamia, the Near East and North Africa.
The ideas of Islam also took root in part of Italy, and
in Spain and Southern France, where the Kipchaks
lived. In them, people saw hope for distancing
themselves from the growing power of the Church,
and willingly let the winds of change into their homes
and cities.
Emissaries of the Prophet Muhammad visited the
kaganates of Desht-i-Kipchak, Khazariya, and the
Volga Bulgars (Bulgaria).
The new faith was adopted peacefully everywhere,
since it united people against the hated Byzantines.
The city-dwellers of Egypt and Syria, for example,
met the Prophet's emissaries ecstatically, with music
and song. As though they were heroes.
Even the Popes were forced to enter into secret
correspondence with the Moslems in the hope that
they would lend him assistance and their support.
They would indeed end up supporting him; they were
close allies until the 11th century. Once, they even
saved the Pope from certain death.
Much has been written about the Caliphate. However,
politics has always interfered with telling the truth,
sometimes forcing one to overlook that which is most
important. For example: Who were they, these
fearless warriors of Islam? Why did they fight on
horseback, with sabres and pikes?
From where in the Near East, in the colonies of
Byzantium, did this cavalry - and the crushing
victories it won - suddenly appear?

The answer lies in the word "Arabs". This is what

Moslems were called in the Dark Ages, and all of
them were included in this one word. It made no
difference whether one was talking about the peoples
of Arabia, Egypt or Syria.
So, a Moslem was an Arab. Dozens of different
peoples became "Arabs" at a single stroke, including
the Near Eastern Turks - the warriors of Islam. It was
they who had raised the blue banner of the new
religion to the light of the Eternal Blue Heavens, and
they now began to illuminate the domes of mosques -
the Moslems' temples.
The new religion of the East stood on ancient Turkic
foundations. Its symbol, naturally, was the sign of
Tengri - the cross (adji).
True, in 1376 the Arabs (Turkis of the Mamluk
Dynasty) substituted a green banner for the blue.
However, they were able to retain the symbol of the
faith by disguising it under an eight-pointed star. With
this, the warriors of the Caliphate went into battle and
won victory after victory.
Only they, however, were privy to the secret - no one
else.
In the Caliphate they viewed the equilateral cross
differently at different times. For example, in the 7th
century, the Governor Muawiyah decided to mint
special "Moslem" coins from silver and gold, but the
people rejected them. "There's no cross on the coins,"
they said.
In the Caliphate the cross was found not just on coins.
It - the sign of Heaven - distinguished the Moslems'
banners from all others. Until 1024 Islam permitted
the day of the Holy Cross to be celebrated. The
celebrations were opened by the Caliph himself. It
was a major national holiday.
The Dark Ages battle between Moslems and
Christians for the sign of the cross was waged
especially cruelly. Moslems forced their way into
churches and knocked the crosses off the walls, then
erased all traces of them. The Christians responded in
kind. Everyone wanted to be closer to the God of
Heaven.
In the 8th century the Europeans began to quietly
yield in the battle; they even decided to turn away
from the cross of Tengri, having come up with Greek
and Latin crosses. They had virtually no choice in the
matter, however. Only the Armenians, who had
changed little over the centuries, kept the cross of
Tengri.
The East and West battled desperately for ownership
of the cross. Their struggle was distinguished by its
surprising passion, since there were Kipchaks living
in both places. It was, however, no longer their sign,
and with all their might they wanted to get it back.
Thus began the Crusades.
True, later on, little would be remembered about these
campaigns or about the history of the cross, and then
only rarely. It was believed that this knowledge had
been forgotten.

Islam was also distinguished by its new architecture.

It is Time, sleeping in stone, over which the centuries
have no power.
No traces of the first mosques have been preserved,
for there never were any. It was on a muddy square,
surrounded by a stone wall that Moslems first prayed
with the Prophet. There then appeared buildings of
Egyptian architecture, but these were too simple and
inexpressive - "They're something like a barn or a
stable," it was said at the time.
The Moslems then turned to the Turkic traditions.
In Jerusalem in 691, the Kipchaks built the first of
their new mosques, the Kubbat as-Sakhra, now known
as the Mosque of the Rock. It is simply magnificent -
a huge domed temple that resembles a giant yurt. The
mosque's elegant octagonal foundations, laid in brick,
have never failed to thoroughly delight those who
visit it.
When an identical mosque was erected in Medina, the
citizens cried out in astonishment: "It's a kilisa!" - that
is, a Turkic temple.
Thus began Moslem architecture - or, more precisely,
it began much earlier, back in the Altai. It came with
the Kipchaks across the Great Steppe and spread
throughout Europe.
In Azerbaijan, for example, in the village of Lekit,
there is a unique Turkic temple of the 5th century, a
true architectural Mecca. Almost 100 years after its
construction (in 527, to be precise), the Kipchaks
copied it exactly with the Church of Sergius and
Vakkh in Constantinople. Then, in 547, the Cathedral
of St. Vitius was built following its design in
Ravennia, the capital of the Italian Turks.
Except for its dimensions and special atmosphere, the
Mosque of Kubbat as-Sakhra is virtually identical to
these. Its dome, which recalls a yurt, and its
foundations, which duplicate those of the aila, were
for the Kipchaks images of the Altai - images of
home. It contained all the warmth of their native land
and all the majesty of Heaven.

At the dawn of Islam, the Near East learned too of

mazars (mausoleums), where distinguished people
were interred. It was said that prayers read here
reached Allah more quickly. Crowds thronged to the
new shrines.
A mausoleum is a steppe burial mound, only made out
of stone.
One other ancient Turkic custom became part of the
East: Memorials (turbs) began to be erected on the
graves of prominent Moslems - monuments like the
stone figures of the Ancient Altai, only simpler.
The dead were mourned according to Turkic customs,
because this is what ritual demanded.

The world changed during the Dark Ages -

imperceptibly, but visibly. In it, Turkic culture
sprouted like the young grass of spring. It would
sometimes appear suddenly and unexpectedly, in
places that no one would ever have dreamed.
For example, when the Arabs learned about, and
adopted, numbers. Of course, we are not talking here
of numbers in general, but of those which are now
called "Arabic". They were in fact Turkic numerals,
and were introduced by the Caliph Walid.
He convinced his subjects that knowing how to write
letters and messages, and how to calculate one's
income and expenses, was an art that glorified the
nation. It was this new art that led the Moslems to
great discoveries in mathematics and physics.
Arabic numerals are the same as Turkic runes and
were already well-known even before the birth of
Christ. At that time, Chinese travellers visited the
Altai and were surprised by the simplicity of the
Turkic numerals. They expressed their surprise in a
book on how to govern a country, a work that has
survived.
The Arab Caliphate was indisputably created by the
Kipchaks and their culture. It was the Turkis who
determined its Fate.

Sultan Mahmud

Until 750 the city of Damascus was the capital of the

Caliphate, and the ruling dynasty was the Umayyad
family. They were then overthrown - not by the
Kipchak Turkis, but by the Oguz Turkis. They
brought the Abbasid Dynasty to the throne, and, in
doing so, seized the reins of power.
The new rulers were called "Iranians", but this is
entirely incorrect. They could not possibly have been
Iranians.
Iran did not influence the Caliphate at all; its native
inhabitants remained fire-worshippers, not Moslems.
Different peoples of different faiths lived in the lands
of Ancient Persia. They were, however, ruled over by
the Moslems - or, more exactly, the Turkis of the
Oguz Dynasty. It was they who sat upon the throne of
the Caliphate.
The new rulers began to do everything differently. In
762 they moved the capital to Baghdad. This was far
from the only project they would undertake. The city
was laid out on a plain and built up from scratch. This
was important symbolically, as was the new city's
name: it came from Bogdo, the ancient Turkic way of
addressing Tengri.
The Abbasids wanted to do everything differently.
They proceeded to do so.
For example, earlier, every Moslem had the right to
speak his native language, honour his ancestors and
celebrate the holidays of his people. He now had to
say good-bye to all this, forever. The faithful were
obliged to speak only Arabic - the language of the
Prophet.
Having been labelled Arabs, they forgot about
everything they had had earlier. Of course, they forgot
it all in the name of Islam.
Only the Turkis could have come up with something
like this. "When among frogs, become a frog," was
their rule of life. Without stopping to think about the
death of the East and its peoples, they ordered
everyone else to live the same way.

The alien Oguz quickly got the upper hand over the
Caliphate's provinces, turning them into subjected
frogs.
Arabic soon displaced all other languages. It was a
peculiar blend of languages, very far from the
language of the Koran. In Egypt, it was not spoken
quite the same way that it was in Syria or on the
Arabian Peninsula. Although they all spoke Arabic,
people sometimes understood each other poorly.
Things did not stop there. The Moslems began to
invent for themselves an Arab genesis. The rulers
adopted such laws so that the different nations would
forever forget the past and become immersed in
ignorance - a kind of jahiliya. In the Near East, a
genuine tragedy was being played out: the Moslem
was, so to speak, being forced to be "born again". Out
of the throes of this process, a new people "came into
the world".
Everything happened exactly the way it had in
Europe. The same volcano in which other people's
cultures had melded was still bubbling. The Turkis
stood both here and at the wells of misfortune. In
assigning to them the role of creators, Heaven had
apparently decided that this should be so.
The Caliphate's rulers tossed their own into the mouth
of the volcano first - the Turkis. They understood that
they were creating a country not for Turkis, but for all
the peoples of the East. They saw their own wisdom
reflected in this.
In breaking down their identity, they were readying
themselves for victory over the Byzantines. They
needed a strong state. It still did not exist, since there
was no unity among the people. The rulers, therefore,
laid themselves out.
The old dynasty that had been overthrown never
risked making this great sacrifice, and were, therefore,
unable to hang onto the Caliphate. Under it, the power
of the Moslems was slipping away, like water into
sand. They began fighting one another for leadership
of the Moslem world. Revolts, wars, sects, arguments
- people could see that these were not strengthening
the country. Just the opposite: they were destroying it.
The Oguz immediately brought peace for all.
However, the new rulers forgot the ancient wisdom of
the Altai: "Rearing a stranger won't give you a son."
Despite enormous sacrifices, they still did not create a
new people. The Arab world would forever remain
one of disputes and struggles for leadership. The
Moslems would not be unified even a thousand years
later.

The Caliphate was woven out of conflict.

It would soon collapse, never to be united again. Its
tragedy was shared by the people. For example.
Egyptians, having begun to use Arabic, forgot their
native tongue; and the Copts - the original Egyptians!
- since they remained Christians, became aliens in
their own land.
Islam and Christianity divided the Egyptian people
into different communities. The stranger's son
remained a stranger. This is what happened in the
Caliphate.
It all happened because, even though they spoke of
unity, the new rulers didn't really want any. Thus, for
example, in 833 the new Caliph, having called
together a number of sages, asked: "How many years
will I reign?" Their answers varied. Just one, the
oldest and greyest, quietly said: "Exactly as long as
the Turkis want you to". Everyone laughed at this
bitter truth: The elite Baghdad Guard had always been
made up of Turkis. It had been this way earlier and
would be later.
The fate of Sultan Mahmud of Gazni, the "Iron
Turki", is especially interesting. The Hindus called
him "the Tatar", since they had worked out for
themselves the secrets of the Arab Caliphate. Their
knowledge of the Turkis was not hearsay. The
aristocracy of Northern India still spoke Turkic - it
was their native tongue - and needed no interpreters.
Sultan Mahmud is a well-known figure in the East.
There are few who could compare with him. In the
11th century he consolidated the Moslem lands in
Northern India. It was under him that the Caliphate
reached its apex of power. Neither mountains nor
deserts, nor rivers, nor the thundering war elephants
of the Hindus could stop this hero of Islam. He kept
on advancing to the East and was always victorious.
The Sultan was mighty on both land and sea. He
easily smashed the Indians' army, then crushed their
navy on the River Ind. The Sultan's victories
reverberated throughout the Dark Ages world:
Christians, Buddhists, Zoroastrians and simple pagans
rushed to become Moslems. The people knew that he
who wins is the one who's right.
The Arabs had won; this meant that their faith was the
true faith.

Sultan Mahmud greatly elevated the Islamic world.

He did so not by war, but by scholars, poets,
translators, thinkers and philosophers. He made them
a part of his court and then opened up libraries for the
people. The number of cultured people grew with
each passing year, multiplying the glory of the Islamic
East. A multi-lingual suite was always in attendance
around the Sultan: Turkis, Persians, Hindus, Arabs
and Chinese.
This was a charismatic leader, a pearl in the crown of
the Caliphate - the most powerful Turki in its history.
His father, Sabuktegin, was "a slave of the slave, who
was himself a slave under the Lord and Master of the
Faithful". This is how the monarch referred to
himself.
Who were these magnificent men, these "slaves"? One
was governor of the province of Transoksiana and
Khorasan; the second was a state minister and
general; the third was head of the city and province of
Gazni. It was from here that Mahmud of Gazni came.
An aristocrat of the highest order now sat upon the
throne of the Caliphate. Brave. Strong. Intelligent.
The true ideal of a leader.
Once, in India, he raised his mace against an idol. The
horrified Hindus promised him mountains of treasure
if only he would not touch the idol. The Sultan
answered quietly: "Your entreaties are persuasive. But
Mahmud is not a trafficker in idols…" He then added:
"What will future generations say about me?" His
strength tripled, he then dealt the statue a shattering
blow.

Under Sultan Mahmud, the sun shone especially

bright in the sky.
It was at this time that the great Ibn Sina (Avicenna)
translated the works of Aristotle, thereby rescuing
them from oblivion. He learned Ancient Greek for just
this purpose. This magnificent scholar also had a
distinguished medical practice. His books on medicine
were well-known throughout Dark Ages Europe, and
generations of physicians learned their craft from
them. In addition, he was famous, too, as a great
connoisseur of the arts.
Al-Biruni, a forgotten genius of the East, also
revealed his talents at this time. He already knew that
the Earth was round and that it revolved around the
Sun. He proved this mathematically 500 years before
Copernicus, thereby revolutionising astronomy.
Of equal stature was Ibn-al-Haisam, famous for his
book "Treasures of Optics". He gave the world the
idea of the telescope and of eyeglasses. In the 12th
century, his works were translated into Latin, making
them the property of Europe.
Under Mahmud, al-Farabi, who had once translated
the works of the ancient philosophers of the West -
which were at that time banned in Europe - came
again to light. Al-Farabi had had a rare mind: He was
called the Second Teacher, second only to Aristotle.
The Talents returned to the Earth under Sultan
Mahmud. It was at this time that a new writing paper
was invented - the same material on which we write
today. This was necessary because so much was
happening: chemistry, physics and literature were all
flourishing. The sky brightened over the world and
became clearer. Precision of word and brilliance of
thought came once again to be valued.
The famous poem "Shakh-name", along with other
pearls of word and image, acquired new life. There
was a flourishing of science, literature and creativity.
The Golden Age of Moslem culture had arrived, and
people savoured all that was beautiful.

It was a Turkic renaissance that would last for many

decades, and give the world more than one poet;
Nizami Gyandzhevi was born of it. It was a time when
stars of the first magnitude shone in the firmament of
the East. As a youth, the Sultan himself dabbled in the
creative arts. At his behest, a new history of the
Caliphate was written. In it, Mahmud declared all
Turkis to be Moslems and Arabs, in order to maintain
the "bazaar of eloquence" - as he himself wrote in a
work of his own.
This is how Turkic culture was "transformed" into
Arab culture. No one any longer made any distinction
between the two. The national memory, however,
preserved that which had almost vanished into the
depths of the ages.
Moslems had always divided science and knowledge
into their own and others'. Theirs was Arab/Moslem,
while others' was "foreign" or "the knowledge of the
ancients" - that is, the Turkis', they said. Philosophy,
mathematics, geography, astronomy, mineralogy,
chemistry, physics - they all began in the Altai.
Glory be to Tengri, who has preserved the truth of
those distant times.

The Turkic Caliphate

The Oguz in the Caliphate were "doomed to triumph".

They had been nurtured by the Ancient Altai - the
spiritual homeland of the Turkic people. Central Asia
was a land of artisans, poets and scholars - the heir to
Kushan Khanate.
When the Moslem cavalry arrived in Central Asia in
the 7th century, the Oguz, once they had learned of
Islam, understood that their hour had struck. It didn't
strike loudly, but they heard it. It was no accident that
among the Ancient Turkis, oguz meant "wise". There
was deep meaning in this.
It was quite true that they couldn't defend themselves
in open battle. Many of them paid for this with their
lives or were captured and made slaves. This did
happen. However: like babies demand their mothers'
milk, Islam in the 7th century needed knowledge,
wisdom and learning. In those years the Moslem faith
was still just a sect of Christianity. No one in the
Caliphate had any idea how to create an independent
religion.
The rulers sought to create external differences; for
example, they ordered Christians to wear clothing
with yellow markings. Or to travel the Caliphate's
roads on donkeys. If they rode on horseback, they had
to do so side-saddle, like women. They couldn't think
of anything more clever than this. They had no fresh
ideas, and no new knowledge.
At that time, the Oguz had it all.

The Oguz knew little of Christianity or of Western

religion in general. This ignorance helped them to
create their own unique faith, since they had nothing
to which to compare it! They created it themselves,
relying solely on their own knowledge and traditions.
They were inspired only by the Altai and its Eternal
Blue Heaven.
It was the Oguz who made Islam, Islam - the
independent religion. New rituals appeared among the
Moslems, and their faith acquired a face very different
from that of Christianity. Meanwhile, the Caliphate
got a new leader - the Sultan, who also was unlike
anyone else.
The Sultan and the Caliph held all power in the
country - temporal and spiritual. This was something
completely new for the East, but quite common for
the Turkic world. Everything became as it was in the
Turkic nation of the Ancient Altai.
Sultan means "power": he was the temporal ruler of
the Moslem world. This was the title given to
Mahmud of Gazni.
It is curious that in the 12th century some wanted to
change the title to Shahinshah, but anyone saying
these words would have been killed: Shahinshah
means "King of Kings" and refers to the Almighty.
The Moslems did not want to call their ruler this,
since they didn't wish to have a "pope" - someone
who was "God's Representative on Earth". They were
anti-pagan.
This is how Islam grew - with its own culture and
code of honour. Sultan Mahmud proved their
superiority with his deeds.
Once, a poor man approached him to complain that an
aristocratic warrior had taken his house and wife. "I
will carry out the sentence myself," said the Sultan.
That night, he broke into the home and executed the
law in the darkness. Having done so, he then lit a
torch. For a moment he stood silently, then fell on his
knees to pray. He then ordered the master of the house
to bring him some food. With the hunger of a beggar
the Sultan attacked the stale bread. For a long time he
said nothing and ate a great deal. The master of the
house could hold back no longer. "What is the matter
with you?" he cried. Sultan Mahmud, Omnipotent
Ruler of the East, answered him: "I've eaten and drunk
nothing for three days, because I thought the guilty
one was my son. That was why I decided to carry out
the sentence myself. So that justice would not be
stayed, I didn't light the torch. Now I see, glory be to
Allah, that it was not my son."
This was how the Turkis then ruled, valuing honour
above all.

Of course, some Turkic traditions died out in the

Caliphate, while others, in contrast, took root forever.
The richer the old life was, the better the new life will
be.
Each generation strengthened the foundations of the
faith. Bukhara, Gyandja, Nakhichevan, Turkestan,
Samarkand - all were sources of a river of knowledge.
The word Tengri long remained on people's lips there.
The first Moslems used the words Tengri, Khodai and
Allah side by side. They were one and the same; only
their shades of meaning were different. In the Ancient
Altai, for example, Allah meant "Guardian Spirit".
Allah-Chayan meant "Creator" or "God". The word
Khodai also meant "God" or "Lord". To this day it is
pronounced there exactly this way.
Only one of these now remains in Islam - Allah.
The name of Tengri was heard less and less often.
This wasn't because people wanted to forget it; the
problem was with the Christians. They, too, said,
"Tengri" or "Dangri", or "Dangyr" when speaking to
God. The East wanted to be different even here.
This was necessary. Only the Moslem Turkis
continued to chant "Tengri" and "Khodai", despite the
prohibitions against it. They guarded these words like
gems handed down from their grandfathers and great-
grandfathers.

The Oguz turned out not just to be true healers of the

human spirit, but skilled hunters of it as well. They
carefully carried out a policy that changed people's
lives. For example, they changed the name of the
Altai. For Moslems it became the Holy Mountain of
Kaf - a mountain standing on an emerald, the light
reflected from which gave the heavens a greenish tint.
This was when green - the colour of an emerald -
became the colour of Islam.
Kaf lives according to the Will of Heaven, they
taught; it was from there that everything came -
earthquakes, windstorms and other vicissitudes of
Fate. This was a holy spot on the planet.
At this time both Moslems and Christians prayed
facing the East, turning their gaze towards the Altai -
or, more exactly, to Mount Kaf. It was only much
later that the Arabian Moslems altered this custom,
directing the faces of the faithful towards Mecca,
instead.

In establishing the rituals of Islam, the Oguz cut like

surgeons along the living Turkic culture. They
suffered unbearable pain, but carried on with what
they had begun. They answered every blow of the
Christians, every one of their thrusts.
There was a battle for the faith, for the God of
Heaven, for icons, for the Cross.
For example: In Byzantium in the 8th century, icons
began to be corrupted. This was done consciously and
with great skill, because the Trullo Church Council of
691 had ordered that icons should depict Christ.
Before this, he was shown as the Lamb of God - a
lamb with a shepherd's crook. Christ was given the
face of the God of Heaven, Tengri. This was an open
challenge and an injustice, one that showed disrespect
for Islam and other religions.
The Almighty had been depicted before on icons by
Moslems, Christians, Altai Turkis, and Buddhists - all
of whom believed in Tengri. In the actions of the
Greeks, however, there was a conscious attempt to
deceive, plus some cold calculation: Christ, in their
opinion, would become something of a common god -
the single God for everyone.
In response, the Caliph Abd al-Malik forbade icons to
the Moslems. From this time forward, they ceased
depicting Allah and all living things created by Him.
By the 9th century this prohibition had become a rule
of Moslem painting. They never observed it, however,
when referring to the Koran. Not only did they paint,
they painted with great talent. It is true, though, that
icons disappeared from the Moslem way of life
forever.
Thus, in the constant battle with Byzantium, Islam
searched for and found itself.

It is difficult to find oneself in the shifting sands of

spiritual dispute.
At this juncture, Jargan, a hero of the Turkic people,
was introduced into Moslem culture. He was not,
however, portrayed as he was, but differently. The
Oguz had always been masters at brewing the potion
of forgetfulness, and Jargan's name was changed for
him. Meanwhile, those who had imbibed the Oguz
concoction simply forgot about his long history.
In Moslem legends Jargan is called Djor, Djirdjis,
Khyzyr, Khyzyr-Ilias, Khyzyr-galya issalaam, Keder,
and Kederles. He was removed farther and farther
from the truth. He remained a young man, but with a
long, grey beard. He became immortal and lived on
the seashore, but not in Derbent. In poetry, reality is
always a bit improbable. This is the value of a true
legend.
Jargan entered the Moslem world as "improbable".
He can be seen to this day in the Mosque of Aiya
Sofia in Istanbul (Constantinople). From time to time,
the warrior here holds nighttime battles, invisible to
humans, with the forces of darkness. Drops of blood -
the traces of these battles - can be found on the walls
of the Mosque in the morning. The blood is wiped
away, but the spots always reappear.
In Derbent, too, at the site of Jargan's grave, miracles
occur. The local inhabitants sometimes see him -
alive, although centuries have passed since his death!
He is immortal, they say. He walks at night, talks with
others and goes to the spring that appeared there
following his earthly execution. He punishes sinners
and helps those who are suffering. His grave is a place
of pilgrimage.
Having imbibed the "potion of forgetfulness", people
no longer remember that the Christians referred to
Jargan as St. Gregory, but his legend still lives on.
Why in the world should ordinary people remember
all this? The important thing is that Islam acquired yet
another hero.

That heroes are sometimes "reborn" is quite common

in History. One can say that, among Moslems, Christ
became Isa, while Moses became Musa; their
biographies, are a bit different from those found in
Christianity. It makes no difference - they are
remnants of early Islam. The Moslems keep and
revere them as Prophets.
Unfortunately, however, politics have also intruded
more than once into History. They have distorted and
confused it, and invented all kinds of horrors. At some
point, the secret of the Monastery of al-Kusair will be
revealed. Here in the Near East, the name of Gheser,
Prophet of the Turkis, once lived on, but he is now
stubbornly denied. It was at al-Kusair that the Moslem
monastery where Hasan of Basra, the founder of
Islamic monasticism, began his work, stood. He died
in 728.
Many mysteries and secrets remain from the Dark
Ages.
At that time, East and West were battling for world
supremacy. They fought desperately. Turkis lived in
both places. They altered names, titles and dates
themselves, and they did so consciously. Behind it all
were politics: they divided up the Turkic legacy. Or,
more exactly, the culture of the Turkic people.
The West wanted to make it theirs, while the East
wanted the same.

On the Eve of Great Changes

In order to win, the East needed freedom. Freedom in

everything: in religion, in trade and in politics. Only
Islam could provide this freedom, since "Whoever has
God, has power".
In the power of the spirit - religion - the West also
saw the guarantee of its victory. The European nations
lived for the glory of the Church. Turkis also stood at
the helm of power, but they occupied no thrones;
instead, they could be found alongside them in the
royal retinues, dispensing advice. It was not they who
decided European politics; they merely took part in
them. The Kipchaks had become Europeans. This
explained everything. They now defended the
interests of their individual countries, and not those of
the Turkic world…. Other interests that had become
their own.
It was much more difficult for the Moslem East. It had
long lived under the yoke of the Empire and created
itself by itself. It had made itself in the depths of
Byzantium, out of yesterday's slaves. The Byzantines,
then masters of the world, were deathly afraid of
Islam: liars always fear the truth.
Though it had bought off the Turkic hirelings in the
4th and 5th centuries, Byzantium came no closer to
the Turkic world. On the contrary: it had developed a
strong hatred for it. The nation's prosperity depended
on the so-called Silk Road, which passed through the
lands of the Kipchaks. It was the Turkis who brought
the riches of the East to Constantinople; in doing so,
they inexplicably acquired there a reputation as
dangerous enemies.
There is, by the way, really nothing to explain or to
find surprising. Byzantium had never belonged to a
single people: Greeks, Turkis, Armenians and Kurds
had all struggled for power there, both overtly and
covertly. Policy had always been set by the victor.
Intrigues, conspiracies and assassinations were
commonplace there. It was by these that they lived.
Byzantium really should have perished - died as a
result of its own conspiracies and constant treachery.
Its fate would be decided in the not-too-distant future.
The Greeks, who had long held power in Byzantium,
lost it once and for all by the 8th century. The Greek
Emperor ruled "just so much as the Turkis allowed
him to". Afterwards, everything happened as it had in
Rome and the Caliphate: In 717, the Kipchaks brought
their own Isaur Dynasty to the throne.
The power of the Greeks was through. The politics of
Byzantium were not.

The Emperor Leo III Isaur was a native of Syria, from

the city of Germanicus. Noble Turkic blood flowed in
his veins: he wielded weapons expertly and was
passionately devoted to horseback riding. The
Kipchaks, as is well-known, had lived in the Near
East since the 4th century and had long since become
natives.
The first Emperor of the Isaur Dynasty ruled wisely
from the Byzantine throne, skilfully deciding matters
to the benefit of the nation. Leo III, a brilliant general
and politician, was distinguished by his intelligence,
instincts, fearlessness and surprising tenacity.
Once, the future Emperor led a small scouting party
across the Caucasus Mountains on skis - the plaited
snowshoes used in the Altai. At the risk of his life, it
would seem he accomplished the impossible: he made
it over the dangerous snowfields and went on to
victory…. The origins of the new Emperor gave him
fearlessness and ardour, features of the Turkic
character, in spades.
Under him, it was as though Byzantium had been
resuscitated and come back to life. In a matter of days,
it became aggressive once again and declared the
Moslems to be its number one enemy…. One can
understand its ruler. He, a Christian, had in his youth
suffered at the hands of the Arabs; and, having
become the Emperor of Byzantium, recalled the
humiliation endured when the Caliphate's Christians
were made to ride on horseback side-saddle, like
women.
The Emperor had not yet made the throne his own
when war began with the Moslems. They advanced all
the way to Constantinople and laid siege to it. A fleet
of 1,800 ships took up position in the bay off the
Golden Horn, threatening the city. No open water was
visible - ships and boats filled the bay from shore to
shore. The city faced total destruction.
The forces were clearly not equal, and defeat seemed
inevitable - or so everyone thought. Everyone except
Leo Isaur. He was not afraid, and calmly proceeded to
build up the city's defences. He sent out raiding
parties and - most important - started using Greek fire,
his secret weapon, in time to make a difference.
Simply put, he burned the enemy's ships at sea, like
steppe-dwellers burn the dry grass in a field before
their enemies.
The world had never seen such a fearsome battle. It
was as if the sea itself were aflame. The Moslems
took this to be a miracle - or, more exactly, as
punishment from God - and fled in terror.
This was no miracle, however: it had come, once
again, from the Kipchaks of the Caucasus. They, both
friends of Leo Isaur and excellent chemists, knew how
to make weapons out of oil - weapons of which no
one at that time knew anything. This was the priceless
"knowledge of the ancients". Chemistry and alchemy
had always been especially revered among the Turkis.
This is how Derbent helped the Byzantines - by
making "Greek fire" from Baku oil. They had long
used it in infantry battles in the Great Steppe. For
them it was commonplace.

The Arabs withdrew. It took a long time for them to

recover from such a horrible defeat. They were truly
afraid, and their subsequent wars with Byzantium
came to nothing. This was a cry of despair: an army
that has lost its spirit cannot be victorious, not even
over an obviously weak foe.
These "wars of desperation" would eventually lead to
the fall of the Caliphate's Umayyad Dynasty. They
were, in fact, the main reason.
With no less talent, Leo Isaur built up trade, bringing
back Byzantium's "Golden Age". He appointed new
courts and introduced new laws that greatly resembled
those of Desht-i-Kipchak. Byzantium began to use
identical laws.
"We have placed before earthly justice a woman to
mediate with the God of Heaven. She is swifter than
any sword in the battle with our enemies…". With
these words, courts in Byzantium now came to order.
They had always done so among the Turkis, who
believed firmly in the justice of the Heavenly Court.
Also of interest is the fact that the Greeks nicknamed
the people of the Isaur Dynasty "chevaliers" - "philly-
" and "horsemen". They were given these humorous
sobriquets for their passion for horseback riding.
The new Byzantine dynasty was also distinguished by
its special interest in the khanates of Desht-i-Kipchak
- Khazaria and Greater Bolgaria (Bulgaria). This had
never happened before. The Byzantines intelligently
and easily carried out their policies there.
The Kipchak khanates wanted to befriend them, the
Byzantine Kipchaks, and to form a single nation. A
surprising union between Byzantium and Desht-i-
Kipchak took shape. Leo Isaur, for example, married
his son, Constantine V, to the daughter of the Khazar
khan. Her name was Chichak, or "Little Flower".
Once she had been baptised into the Greek Church,
she assumed the name Irina (Irene). It was with this
name that she would go down in Byzantine history.
Under the Isaurs, everything changed dramatically.
Everything was now done differently; it was as if the
country had been born anew.
The khanates of Khazaria and Greater Bolgaria
became not just friends of Byzantium, but mainstays
in the battle against the Catholics and Moslems. Later,
in 864, the Bolgars converted completely to Greek
Christianity. This was clearly a political step - one
that would have far-reaching consequences for
centuries to come.
Leo Isaur did indeed introduce much that was
Kipchak in nature into Byzantine society. He himself
would spend his entire life battling against the Turkic
world. It was he who ordered that icons be corrupted
with the likeness of Tengri, in response to criticism
over their "barbarian" origins.
It was he who, for the same reason, delivered a heavy
blow against the monasteries of Byzantium. At the
same time, this deadly enemy of the Turkis and
Moslems took all that was best in Islam; for this his
contemporaries accused him of "sympathy for the
Moslems".
Was this perhaps what politics demanded? Byzantium
had always played a double game. Under its Kipchak
rulers, it was as though it had come back to life,
spread its wings, and began to prepare for war - a war
for the right to life in a new world.

However, everything happened differently than the

Greeks intended. In the 9th century their plans were
dealt a decisive blow, unexpectedly but inevitably. It
had been carefully prepared. The Pope at that time,
Nicholas I, rejected the authority of the Byzantine
Patriarch and declared his independence to the world.
This was a blow to the heart itself, an open challenge
towards the redistribution of Europe and power in the
Church. It became clear that the Greek Church,
created in the 4th century through force and treachery
by the Emperor Constantine, was living out its best
years. Awesome changes were approaching it from
both East and West.
The entire world prepared to rise up against
Byzantium - a nation that had become fabulously rich
in the early Dark Ages.
For centuries the Greeks had got rich off of
Christianity. In dictating the rules of life for other
peoples, they sat in judgment, carried out executions
and dispensed mercy. They were masters of other
people's homes and other people's pockets. Like a
river, riches flowed into Constantinople from all over
the world.
And a lot of people didn't like it, either.
The Byzantines had, however, still won the first battle
for the redivision of the world. They had been united
by a Kipchak named Leo Isaur, who repulsed the
attack from the East. The next battle, though, would
not take place between armies, but within the Church.
In spiritual disputes, the Byzantines had always been
weak.

Desht-i-Kipchak held a strong position in this battle

for power over Europe: behind it stood half the world.
It held in its hands both gold and the sword - the main
levers of politics. Most important, however, was the
fact that the Turkis no longer understood one another,
although they all spoke the same language. Some had
remained true to the covenant of Tengri; others to the
Koran or the Bible.
The nation had lost its name and, therefore, its spirit.
It had forgotten the lessons of the Ancient Altai - that
neither the sword nor money rules in this world, but
he to whom the soul of the people belongs.
On the other hand, the Italians, also enemies of
Byzantium, were distinguished by their unity of spirit.
They had been united by the Catholic Turkis, who in
756 created a semi-state on the territory of Ravenna -
a Papal enclave, the successor to which would be the
Vatican. There, the monastic orders of the Pope held
absolute power. For them borders did not exist, and
they held entire nations in the palms of their hands.
The present Vatican is a sign of Papal authority. It is
the world's smallest state, a true dwarf - but its power
is enormous, like that of all dwarves who have
subjugated giants.
There had always been giants among the servants of
the Pope - the descendants of the great Attila. There in
the Vatican, all that was Latin and all that was Turkic
have long since merged into one. No one knows
where one stops and the other begins. The lessons of
the Ancient Altai, though, have always been
scrupulously observed there: those who serve in the
Vatican are unshakable in their beliefs, and the Pope
is obeyed without question.
Everyone knows that the basis of his power is God.
Or, more accurately, the Word that reigns over the
souls of all people. To Him, they listen.

Pope Gregory VII, who initiated the Church's new

policy in 1075, was a native of Tuscany, the home of
many Italian Kipchaks. His high cheekbones and
predatory, hawk-like eyes most likely would have
earned him the sobriquet Togryl ("Hawk"), had he
lived in the Great Steppe. He hated everything that
was Turkic, the way all turncoats hate their homeland
- much too strongly.
As Pope, he issued a Decree which included his "right
to designate and crown emperors". In other words,
under Gregory, the Catholic Church declared its
authority over all the monarchs of Europe. He became
a "king of kings", evoking the ire of King Heinrich
IV, the leader of South Germany.
War soon broke out. The German Kipchaks took
Rome by storm. They were not, however, able to kill
the Pope, since the Moslems intervened. By the
sword, they cut a path to the castle where the Pope
had taken refuge and rescued him.
The Moslems were faithful allies of the Vatican.
Pope Gregory knew about Tengri quite well: while
studying the rituals of Islam, he openly declared that
he worshipped the same God as the Moslems, that the
two faiths were identical, and that they both had but
one source. It should be noted that this was a daring
thought even for the Pope.
It seems daring only today, however, now that much
has been forgotten. In those times such words were
hardly rare. Catholics and Moslems, like soldiers of
one army, had stood shoulder-to-shoulder for
centuries and had fought against Byzantium for
hundreds of years. For example, Pope Sylvester II
(who, incidentally, was also a Kipchak by blood) had,
prior to his election, spent several years among the
Moslem Turkis, studying mathematics, chemistry and
the technical sciences. In Europe, his knowledge was
imbued with an aura of legend. The tale of the famous
Dr. Faust was based on the life of Sylvester.
The friendship between the Moslem Turkis and the
Catholic Turkis is now forgotten. In those days it was
remembered, and not at all surprising.

The Turkis are indeed the main mystery of the Dark

Ages that followed the collapse of Rome. Historians
have deliberately made them darker, transforming
some events into farce, and others into
misunderstanding. It is as though they have forgotten
about the Turkic nation and its contribution to the
treasure-house of mankind.
No one, though, can alter the truth of Time. Not even
the Church.

Dissent

Of course, not all the Church's popes were alike: one

might devote himself to service, another to pleasure.
Even the Papal tiara cannot change the essence of a
person.
There were years when the Vatican's palaces were
places of wild debauchery, bloody crimes and total
ignorance. It was as if the clergy were competing with
the laity in sin - in drunkenness, sloth and other
deadly vices.
Then, with the coming of a new Pope, everything
would change. There would again be prayers, politics
and intrigues. With the passage of time, however, the
Church once again began to decline. Why? There is
no answer to this; no one has tried to find any.
Were the Turkis not the cause of this? It was
according to their traditions that the Catholic Church
had been built. They were the rulers there; this could
be seen in every detail, large and small. Nevertheless,
the Church's Apostolic Laws was written by a
Kipchak, Father Dionysius the Younger - which, most
certainly, had consequences of its own.
For example: all the popes from the 4th century on
have worn on their fingers a ring bearing the image of
a fish. This has been handed down as symbol of
power within the Vatican. The ring itself, however, is
from the Altai. How and through whom it got to
Rome is unknown, but objects with exactly the same
image of a fish have been found many times in Altai
burial mounds.
Is this pure chance? Of course not; we are talking here
about symbols! Only tengrichi - the Turkic high
priests - had such things. It was the sign that set them
apart and gave them the right to hold power. The sign
of the fish is around 3,000 years old. Among the
Ancient Turkis, it was the symbol of the sky - the
heavenly ocean.
Far from being pure chance, too, was the "Rite of
Plunder", another ritual long observed in the Church.
Following the election of a pope, the guards would
raid the Papal palaces, carrying off everything that
could be carried. The great Roman Empire knew no
such ritual. It was deeply Turkic and was called the
khan talau, the "Robbing of the Khan". It was
abolished only in the 16th centure, having fallen into
disfavour with the guards.
The Moslems also had such a "Rite of Plunder", and
they, too, got it from the Turkis. Their khan talau
usually took place following the death of a caliph. It
was carried out especially vigorously in 991, when the
palace was reduced to ruins.
This was not an act of barbarism, but a celebration of
the monarch. A bit wild, of course, but a celebration
nevertheless. It was how the people expressed their
recognition of the new authority which he had
assumed…. Of course, everything that had been
"stolen" was returned.
There are many such examples in the history of the
Dark Ages.

The battle between that which was Turkic and that

which was not would long distinguish the world, Italy
and the Vatican. Traces of it remain in the chronicles.
Here is a parable from those days; it has the
philosophy of a Turk, reveals the soul of a Turk and
explains much about the Turkis:
A teacher ordered his pupils to kill a dove, but to do it
in such a way that no one could see them. The Latin
boy slit the dove's throat inside a barn. The Greek boy
killed his dove in a dark cellar; the Celtic boy, in the
depths of the forest. Only the Turkic boy gave his
teacher a live dove, saying that the task was
impossible. "Why?" the teacher asked him. The boy
answered: "Because God sees everything. Nothing can
be hidden from him."
Earlier, the Turkis' own special concept of God and
the world lived within them. They came into this
world like no one else. The culture of their ancestors
was passed on to them with their mothers' milk, with
the lullabies and fairy tales they would remember all
their lives.
Though he may have become a Catholic or a Moslem,
a Turk nevertheless remained an emissary of the Altai.
A sense of freedom continued to live within his soul.
Inborn, like his love for his homeland, it was
ineradicable. To this day, it remains unextinguished.
A Latin who came to the Papal throne might well be
capable of sin. To him a former pagan, the faith of the
God of Heaven was alien, and he would still hope to
hide from the Almighty's all-seeing eye. He would
hope to escape Divine Judgment, not understanding
that this was impossible.
This would become a source of dissention in the
Vatican. Two peoples with different national traits
lived side by side in Italy, and they would clash in the
Church.
They were both called "Italians", but they were clearly
two different types of Italians.

The popes remained people of the culture (or, more

exactly, those rules and traditions) according to which
their ancestors had lived. This is clear from the history
of the popes itself.
For the Italians, heading the Vatican meant acquiring
power. They would occasionally buy themselves the
throne - and, along with it, the right to sin. Thus, John
XII, having donned the Papal tiara at the age of 20,
would transform the Church into a house of sin for
years to come.
The Turkis served the Church somewhat differently.
Without realising it, they remained true to their
culture and their ancestors even after they had become
Christians. Yes, they, too, were responsible for
cruelties and violence, but they did such things not for
the sake of their own peccadilloes, but for that of their
new faith.
This was the policy of those Europeans whose roots
were in the Altai.

The New Europeans

Some in Europe looked benignly on the sins of the

Vatican; others did not. The unrest and rebellions
among the Catholic parishioners were like epidemics
of the plague, but they were not surprised at them.
This is a common phenomenon of a new life.
The first to grumble about the sins of the Vatican
were the Bogomils; this is what those Catholics who
wished to return to Tengri were called. The Cathari,
who were just as dissatisfied, later took their place;
they were followed by the Albigensians. They all
spoke out for purity of faith in the God of Heaven.
They greatly disliked the high-handedness of the
Pope.
The Bogomils, Cathari and others were not some sort
of mythical nations, as historians sometimes portray
them. They were the forebears of the present-day
French, Italians, Spanish, Germans and Swiss. They
were also called Khazars or Bolgars for their
indefatigable temperament and Turkic origins. The
spirit of the Altai did not disappear all at once in Dark
Ages Europe.
It took a long time to die, in suffering and great
torment. The people remembered the banners of Attila
and their bygone pride. The Turkic spirit tried
desperately to come back to life in people bothered by
their loss of freedom. In reviving the faith of their
ancestors, they made themselves and their point of
view, known to all. It was all, however, in vain.
In essence, the entire history of Dark Ages Europe is
the story of the Turks' battle against other Turks.

Other Uluses, caught up in this battle acted

differently. They refused to fight against the Church
and left its lands behind. They fled to Scandinavia, far
from the Pope and his intrigues. There were Kipchaks
living in Northern Europe, too; they were called
Goths. Their guardian spirit was the lizard, or "little
dragon", which, in Turkic, is got.
The Runic monuments of Scandinavia from that time
and the results of Attila's 435 campaign in the
European North - where he founded a new khanate -
both tell of the Turkis.
The monuments of that time have been beautifully
preserved. There are many of them. In the Baltic Sea,
for example, there is the island of Gotland - literally,
the Land of the Goths. It is far from accidental that the
lizard, or little dragon, was the symbol of
Scandinavia. It can be seen on old Scandinavian
monuments everywhere. To this day the symbol of the
dragon has not been forgotten.
It is apparent that the Balts were at one time dominant
there. It is from them that the name of the area comes
- the Baltic.
The Kipchaks of Italy left for their kinsmen in the
frigid North most unwillingly; by doing so, however,
they hoped to keep themselves, their faith and their
culture intact. They knew how to raise livestock and
cultivate the land, skills with which the indigenous
peoples there were unfamiliar. They also knew
nothing of metallurgy or smithing. They learned all of
this from the Turkis.
In the world of the Dark Ages the rich deposits of iron
ore in the mountains of Norrland at once made
Scandinavia important. It went quickly from being
Europe's backyard to becoming a strong state. In
Rome they began speaking cautiously about the
Norsemen, courageous warriors and skilled
metalworkers. The first mention of them in the
chronicles was made in 839, when emissaries of the
Norse arrived in Constantinople. They were seeking
an alliance to move against the Catholics under the
wing of Byzantium.
The Norsemen were famous for their fearlessness and
their skill in smelting metal to make excellent
weapons. They easily conquered all of Northern
Europe. An alliance with Byzantium was for them of
the utmost importance. Much has been learned from
the old Scandinavian sagas of that time. They are true
poetic chronicles of Europe.
From them it is clear that the Norse rulers rode on
horseback. It is also plain that they embarked on sea
voyages of a military nature and brought their horses
on board with them. Their favourite foods were boiled
horsemeat and kumys - fermented mare's milk.
Occasionally, for one reason or another, the
Norsemen's horses would end up on unpopulated
islands and revert to their wild state. Some herds died
out, while others survive to this day, to the
puzzlement of biologists: How could steppe animals
have possibly got to these far northern islands?

The Scandinavian sagas are quite remarkable.

They remain to be truly studied, especially the Saga of
Viland, the wonderous master smith. It contains
striking details about the life of the Norse. It even says
that Viland made a wine cup out of an enemy's skull.
This was a purely Turkic custom, by which the
Norsemen lived.
Many also see symbols of the Altai in the famous
Saga of Sigurd, which tells of the legendary
Niebelungen. Who were these people? This is
unknown - or, more likely, has been forgotten. In
antiquity, this was what the Turks called their warriors
(niv), who served the dragon (lung), and on whose
coat of arms a dragon was depicted.
It was no accident that the dragon became the symbol
of the Norsemen. One can conclude that the song
Uber den Niebelungen has historical roots and a
master - that is, it has a past.
Moreover, magnificent rockstones, exactly the same
as those in the Ancient Altai, can be found in
Northern Europe. Archaeologists are unable to explain
why pictures on stones found in the Altai's Abakan
River and in Scandinavia, are indistinguishable.
This again is not all. Exactly the same pictures, with
exactly the same designs, could be seen on the boats
of the Norsemen. Where did they come from? Why
did "Altai" dragons adorn the jewellery of the
Scandinavians? This is a whole other story, one which
demands a separate discussion.
The ancient symbols of the Turkis can be seen
everywhere in Scandinavia.
Is it mere coincidence, for example, that the
Scandinavians came to believe in the God of Heaven?
Their Thor and Donar (or Dangir) are ways of
addressing Tengri. It is these words that are recorded
in the sagas. True, their ritual was not the same as that
of the Altai. It became infused with local religious
beliefs. This makes it even more interesting.
What they have now is a melding of cultures: The
faith of God and pagan beliefs now coexist, side by
side. The Scandinavians needed such a blending. The
indigenous population and the Turkic newcomers both
sought a union. In order to become stronger they
found it.
This union, which was forged in the Dark Ages, did
not disappear. It lives on in Scandinavia to the present
day. It is obvious that the forebears of the Swedes
were nearer to the Turkis and their culture. The love
for metal and the skills of metalworking lives on in
their descendants. The Norwegians are something else
again. Their traditions are nearer those of the Finns.
They are wonderful hunters, miners and seamen, but
they are not craftsmen. Their national temperament is
completely different.
The Scandinavians are usually taken to be one people
- the Nordics - but they are still different. Everything
there is as it is among the Italians. They feel
themselves to be different, but they cannot understand
why.
Something remains in their memory, while something
else has been forgotten.
Peoples never confuse that which is theirs with that
which belongs to others. The former is something
vital, something that one knows instinctively. How do
people manage this? Science doesn't know.
The Belgians display exactly this kind of confusion.
Two distinct peoples live in Belgium - the Flemish
and the Walloons. Time has not transformed them into
one nation, although they have lived side by side for
fifteen centuries.
Peoples do not blend together. They only forget
themselves.
The ancestors of the Flemish were Kipchaks, brought
by Attila. This is a historical fact. The clothing,
customs and holidays of the Flemish were, so to
speak, taken from the Altai and refashioned for
Europe. The metalwork, traditional handicrafts
utensils, Turkic-style dress, national cuisine (in which
garlic holds a prominent place), even their bathhouses
- everything among the Flemish is plainly Altaic.
This is especially true of their ancient designs and
jewellery - the tamga of the Altai. Of real interest is
the province of Limburg, where there are ancient
temples and monasteries, built in honour of Tengri.
There is even a city of Tangeren, which the French
also call Tongres. In 451, it saw the horsemen of
Attila on its streets. It was at that time, apparently,
that the first Turkis settled here as well.
The Flemish had forgotten their native tongue by the
15th century thanks to the persistent efforts of the
Church. It was now, so to speak, dissolved in the
many different local dialects, leaving behind traces of
itself in words that became common for all Belgians.
The Walloons, on the other hand, are descendants of
the Celts and are a completely different people. There
is not one drop of Turkic blood in their veins; they are
of an entirely different culture and way of life. In
them the sight of a horse arouses neither memory nor
joy.

The Norse gave rise to more than one nation in

Northern Europe.
There are unique Dark Ages monuments in Denmark
and Holland as well. The early history of these
countries, it is becoming clear, was written in Turkic
runes and according to Altaic rules. In Denmark the
influence of the Kipchaks is plainly more noticeable,
since there was already a Turkic population living
there before the arrival of the Norsemen. It was
brought there in the 5th century by Attila.
The Dutch and the Flemish know about their common
ancestry, but are unable to explain it. They have
forgotten about it.
Was it mere chance that the tulip was adopted as the
emblem of Holland? The Kipchaks called it "the
khans' flower"; it first bloomed on the steppe, in their
homeland. Perhaps it will also one day remind the
Dutch of the Great Steppe, the Altai and of their
forgotten past.
Without a past, there is no nation; without a past, it is
an orphan, a foundling. The symbols of one's native
land cannot be created out of thin air; one is born with
them. They make up the memory of the nation. They
are a divine pealing of bells that only their own people
can hear.

The Kipchaks explain many of the mysteries in

European history; through them much becomes clear.
For example, once one recalls the Turkis of the Dark
Ages, the debates about the mythical "Rus" lose all
meaning. It was the Norse who sometimes referred to
themselves as Rusy. Or, more exactly, to their cousins
who lived on the shores of the Baltic.
From this came their famous Rus - in other words, the
Principality (or Khanate) of Mariners. There was a
White Rus and a Black Rus and a Kievan Rus as well.
The word rus can even be found in the book "A
Collection of Turkic Dialects", written by the Dark
Ages scholar Mahmud of Kashgar. He was a great
expert on the Ancient Turkic language. He lived in
Central Asia, far from Europe and the Scandinavians.
It is likely that he had never even heard of them.
Rus (or rs) was what oarsmen were called in the
Ancient Altai - those who had from generation to
generation "lived off the oar" or earned their living by
rowing. This is why the Norsemen called themselves
this - or, more precisely, those who lived "off the oar"
on the shores of the Baltic.
It was Mahmud of Kashgar who offered this "ethnic"
explanation of the word.

"There is nothing sweeter than one's youth," teaches

the Altai. The 9th century, with its mysterious
Norsemen, who first appeared like a tornado and then
vanished without a trace, marked the age of youth for
Northern Europe.
In 865, an "English Rus" was born. It was then that
the mighty troops of the Norsemen first disembarked
in England. They were led by two brothers, sons of
the great Regnar Leatherpants. Who was he? Let us
say that no one knows for certain. However, the first
thing that his sons did in England was to obtain
horses. They knew that "you won't get anywhere if
you don't drive your horse to death". The Old Norse
"Saga of Regnar Leatherpants" is about them.
With their arrival, the Norsemen firmly established
Turkic culture in England without even noticing. It
included burial mounds, the main mark of the Great
Steppe; elegant books; magnificent jewellery and
embroidery; fine engraving and inlaying - all done
according to Altaic prototypes. It was for this reason
that they encountered no serious resistance among the
English Kipchaks.
English archaeologists have long argued over the
origins of these finds - all for nothing. The primitive
style in which the finds were executed (and which so
delights the English) is a mark of the Ancient Altai, its
tamga. This is - no doubt to the chagrin of the
archaeologists - quite true.
There is no longer anything like it anywhere in the
world.

The tracks left by the Turkis in Iceland and Greenland

are especially interesting. Once again, one can see the
"primitive style" and the Runic monuments; here, they
have been "studied" by science.
No one has genuinely studied these monuments. They
have always been treated as some kind of anomaly of
the Dark Ages - a fluke of History, transported from
only God knows where. "Experts" have tried
translating the ancient texts without even knowing
what language they were working from. The
Nibelungen is a good example of this: what they got
was not a translation, but pure rubbish - "spoiled
knowledge", a mere string of words.
The name Iceland is, by the way, also Turkic: isi was
"to become hot"; the name therefore literally means
"hot earth".
Why not? It happens to be true. Until the 11th century
they ate horseflesh in Iceland, not herring. They also
spoke Turkic. The "land of ice" interpretation that is
generally accepted today doesn't suit Iceland at all:
there are many islands in the North Atlantic that are
covered with ice, but only one that is hot - the one that
was found in the 9th century by the Norsemen. They
were surprised at how warm it was.
Even today tourists are drawn to Iceland by its
volcanoes and geysers. Volcanoes are volcanoes; we
doubt, however, if anyone knows that the national flag
of Iceland - a fimbriated cross on a dark blue field -
was once called a tug.
It is, in fact, a Turkic flag; they have kept the banner
under which Attila fought! There were many such
flags in the Ancient Altai.
Other North European flags also bore the cross,
fimbriated or not; one has only to look at the old
banners of Sweden, Belgium or England to see this.
True, there is a legend that sometime in the 12th
century, the Swedish King Erik IX saw in the sky the
gold cross that became the symbol of his country.
This may be possible, but it is not the entire truth.
This was the era when Catholicism was establishing
itself in the region, and the Vatican "tweaked" the
history of Scandinavia, just a bit.
This was the way it always acted whenever it was
consolidating its power.

In America, too, in the state of Minnesota, monuments

with Turkic runes have been found. True, they have
been declared fakes - that they could be discovered
there was simply too unexpected. There are, however,
other facts that sooner or later must be investigated.
One cannot get away from this if, for example, one
wants to learn more about the Vinland (Winlandia)
that was (according to an Icelandic saga) discovered
by Leif Ericsson in 1000 AD.
Leif was the son of the famous Norseman Eric the
Red. The first mate on his voyage was a Turki - a man
with a freckled face, high forehead and short legs. He
knew the Germanic tongue well - in other words, he
spoke Turkic fluently - loved making things and was
well-versed in the sciences.
It was he who, by happy accident, discovered
America. He even found wild grapes growing there, a
delicacy of which the Norsemen had never heard. So,
there were Turkis in America, too.
Vinland lay to the west of Greenland. It was noted by
the Norsemen on the old map mentioned above. The
ocean that washed both their shores was called
Tengyr. It is this Ancient Turkic word that cuts across
the Norsemen's map from top to bottom. In the
margins, a short text about the voyage is written in
Altaic runes.
Until fairly recently the map was kept in a museum in
Hungary. It was printed on paper whose recipe was
known only in Samarkand, which tells us a great deal.

This is how widely Fate tossed the Kipchaks around

the world.
They settled islands, founded new nations and
discovered America 500 years before Columbus. They
would do anything to avoid knowing the Pope.

The Crusades

The period following the collapse of Rome is known

as the Dark Ages, and for good reason. People will
never learn the truth about them. The Catholics
destroyed the chronicles and books of those years.
Almost nothing remains. They created thousands of
ways to kill the truth, and accomplished the truly
unbelievable. Here is just one of the methods they
used.
The Church introduced a rule for the nobility: they
had to fight (or "duel" with) a dragon. Without having
slain a dragon, no man could call himself a nobleman.
His road into high society was blocked, and his
neighbours would not open their doors to him.
What kind of dragon did they have to slay, though?
What sort of "duel" were they talking about? Europe
had no live dragons. However, the image of the
dragon, the sign of Turkic culture, was everywhere.
The Church expected one to renounce his ancestors.
He had to swear that he wished to know nothing that
was connected to "the dragon". It was a kind of ritual
duel - a bloodless duel, behind which stood murder of
the most real sort: the killing of the memory.
Here is another example which speaks volumes. The
Turkis would never stab a foe with a sabre or dagger,
calling this a disgraceful act of treachery. It was with
straightforward, slashing blows that the Kipchaks
fought. According to their rules of honour, an enemy
ought to see the blow coming.
This was noted in the Church. The Catholics of those
times were armed with broadswords, stilettos and
dirks, that is, with thrust weapons. They fairly bristled
with weapons. In single combat in the narrow and
tangled city streets of the period, they prevailed. The
Church had never cared about the rules of a fair fight.
Thus, the sabre gave way to the broadsword, and
nobility to baseness. The Catholics, though, connected
their victory with the fact that the broadsword
resembles a Latin cross, and that in it (they said) lies
the Victory of Christ.
They remained silent about everything else.

Pope Gregory VII also proposed the Crusades to

Europe for the "Victory of Christ". In reality, though,
it was not for the sake of rescuing the grave of Christ
(the coffin of Christ, as it was thought at that time that
the body of Christ was placed in a coffin) that he
plotted these wars - the bloodiest and most senseless
wars of the Middle Ages.
A horrible new period in history was about to begin.
By the 11th century, Western Europe had become
sufficiently strong to launch an attack on Byzantium
and the Islamic East. It was now important for the
Pope to incite the people to a war for power over the
world. This resulted in a policy known as the
Crusades. It would last for almost two centuries.
This happened, to be exact, despite the fact that there
were in Palestine, which bore the brunt of the Pope's
new war, no coffins and certainly not the coffin of
Our Lord, since the Jews did not bury their dead in
coffins. So, the truth be told, there was nothing about
which to fight.
War, however, was needed. A war from the Atlantic
to the banks of the Euphrates, one that would plunge
the world into flames. The Church came up with the
myth of "the coffin of Our Lord", which had
apparently been seized by heathens.
Agents of the Pope arranged a pogrom in Jerusalem
against the Christians, and blamed it on the Moslems.
This served as the grounds for war. A man called
Peter the Hermit, who had been tormented since birth
by deliriums and nightmares, helped. This unbalanced
youth had married a wicked older woman for her
money, but the marriage did not bring him any
happiness. Peter exchanged the rich home of his wife
for the cell of a monk. In 1094, he went to Jerusalem
at the insistence of the Pope. There, it seems, he was
approached by Christ, who said: "Peter, tell the
faithful about the plight of the holy places, arouse
them to cleanse Jerusalem and rescue their shrines
from the hands of the pagans."
These words would lead to the start of the Crusades.
With them, the Catholics began a war against their
long-time allies - the Moslems.
It was at this time, too, that the first outrageous stories
appeared about Islam being the enemy of all
Christians and the whole humankind. Vicious lies
about it were being spread on every street corner, in
every home. The Pope's agents operated like a well-
tuned-up mechanism, precisely and without fail. From
monastery to monastery, from city to city, they spread
their rumours. The slander circulated, penetrating into
people's souls, and engendering hatred for the
Moslems.
The Catholics wanted to push the Greeks out of the
Mediterranean, and they needed a new policy to do so.
Pope Gregory VII was one of the Church's most
perspicacious popes.

As was noted long ago, however, one man, no matter

how great and powerful, cannot really accomplish
anything, since there are no perfect people. On the
other hand, there are grandiose plans! They bewitch
entire nations, and transform even the wisest among
them into gullible fools.
Pope Gregory VII's call to arms for a "War for God"
was one such plan.
He planned not just the conquest of the
Mediterranean: he also wanted to exhaust Europe and
deprive it of its strongest and most enlightened
people. This was the first and most secret aim of his
plans for the Crusades. The Church had long dreamed
of simultaneously being "the temporal and spiritual
emperor". The Pope thought to destroy those in his
flock who were dangerous to him, above all the
nobility and idle youth. In other words, "all young
men of military age", as they were called.
At that time, the West lived according to the concept
of "God's World", which forbade war and any sort of
hostilities between Catholics. This idea arose in the
south of France and won the hearts and minds of
Europe's kings. It was supported by the people. There
was something bewitching about it; it also sounded
sweet to the Turkic ear. Trenga Dei - "God's World".
Like a distant echo of the forgotten Tengri, it soothed
the ear. In the blood of the Latin Kipchaks, memories
of the majestic past were stirred. What had been was
remembered once again.

Throughout the year 1096, throngs of people streamed

into the large cities of Western Europe. Their squares
and streets could not accommodate all those who
wanted to volunteer. People sewed crosses made out
of red cloth - the emblem of the Pope's army - onto
their right shoulders, and became crusaders.
"God has willed it, God has willed it," the then Pope
Urban II never tired of repeating. Urban took the
crusaders under his own personal protection: he
absolved them of their sins and forgave all their debts.
Everything he could do for them, he did, and for them
only.
A great many people sewed the cross on their
clothing. They were undoubtedly very religious, but
they had been deceived by the Pope. They were being
herded to their deaths, like young bulls to the
slaughter. They never even guessed it.
Noblemen and their children, peasants and artisans -
all prepared for the march on Jerusalem, for the
liberation of the Holy Land. Families gathered from
Toulouse, Burgundy, Flanders - in a word, from all of
the Turkic lands of Western Europe. They were
preparing to work a miracle: to fight for something
that didn't exist.
It seems astonishing, but few of the crusaders knew in
what country the Holy Land lay, or why and to whom
it was important. Their leaders had no plan of action.
One was, incidentally, hardly needed, since the Pope
was leading people out of Europe to their certain
deaths. What was important to him was the fighting
between the Western and Eastern Turkis; he wanted
the maximum possible number of casualties. The
Church would win no matter how the war turned out.
Whenever speaking about "pernicious" Islam, though,
the Pope lied baldly. There is in the Koran nothing
about the subjugation of other nations - not even a
hint at it. On the other hand, it does say that it is to
faith's detriment if it is imposed by force and deceit.
For Moslems, this is a sin. Only by the Word, only by
personal example, can Islam be spread.
Each thing with which the Pope came up was worse
than its predecessors, but never once did he think of
the Truth.
The crusaders, knowing nothing about Islam, began
the war. They cared nothing about knowledge and
books. They thirsted for blood and the fabled riches of
the East. This is what attracted many of them.

The looting began at once. On the way to Jerusalem,

the Pope's warriors provisioned themselves by
plundering settlements and robbing everyone they
came across, while the monks fed them nothing but
rumours. Women and children marched alongside the
troops; the whole thing resembled a migration of
peoples. It was just the opposite, however: they were
marching not to settle new lands, but to die in them.
The crusaders took practically every major city for
Jerusalem and would begin preparing for the attack.
Flowing turbidly, the blind mass moved on, ever to
the East. It gathered new members and new allies: the
power of the crusade's message drew people and
ignited their passion.
It was a scene of general confusion. Society's rejects
marched alongside the gentles of the nobility.
Genuine thieves, for example, led the crusaders from
England. They were helped along by a robber who
burned a cross into his body and declared that it had
been done "by the hand of God".
It was also said, incidentally, that "a thief who has
killed dozens of people has a chance to do good, too".
At this time, everything was forgiven, and everything
was encouraged - if only to increase the number of
crusaders.

The inhabitants of present-day Germany, then part of

the Holy Roman Empire, at first viewed the throng of
crusaders as a herd of wild animals. The Bavarians
and Saxons laughingly referred to them as victims of
"false and foolish hopes". The Germans remained deaf
to the words of the Pope's preachers; they had no love
for Urban, and their emperor, Henry IV, had once
even gone to war against him. However, the example
of their French and English cousins proved
contagious. The German Kipchaks were infected with
an irresistible urge to migrate.
Turkic blood awoke in the Holy Roman Empire, too.
The number of crusaders from the German lands grew
literally before one's eyes, even despite the protests of
the Emperor. A goat and a goose were placed at the
head of the detachment from the Rhine, and declared
them the "leaders of the expedition".
This was hardly unexpected; everything was as it
should have been, since the sheep and the swan were
ancient Turkic symbols - guardian spirits. They hadn't
been forgotten; they had by now just been redrawn
slightly in people's consciousness.
The blending of cultures can be seen wherever one
does not expect it. This is what makes ethnography so
fascinating.
For example, there is very little that is known for
certain about the Pope's army. There is almost no
reliable data. No one knows of whom it was made up,
of what nations it consisted. There is one thing we do
know, though, and that is the religious songs that were
sung by those who took part in the Crusades. They
were sung by choirs, which makes a great many
things clear. What were these songs?
The Church called them "pilgrims' songs". They were,
of course, ascribed to divine origin, since they were
believed to have united the multilingual peoples of
Europe. But did they really?
These songs, it becomes clear, sounded identical in
the languages of the Italians and the French, the
English and the Germans. They were ancient
campaign songs of the Turkis who marched in the
"multilingual" mass of crusaders; the people sang folk
songs in their native language. All the same, one
shouldn't forget that every second European was
Turkic by blood, as had been true since the time
following the Great Migration of the Peoples.
It was memory that united the people then. The
tradition of campaign songs, as is well-known, was
brought to Europe from the Altai; it did not exist there
earlier. This is why the English could then speak with
the French and the Germans without interpreters.
They all understood one another: Turkic was the
common language of intercourse in Europe.
It was not forgotten entirely until the 15th century.

No one feared the crusaders as much as the

Byzantines, for they saw in them the face of their own
death, and could feel its breath. The Catholics "for the
sake of appearance headed for Jerusalem", reported
one Byzantine chronicle of the period, "and are now
capturing Constantinople, instead".
Of course, the crusaders at once began pillaging here,
too - in the capital of Christendom. They broke into
churches, seized all the accoutrements and valuables
they could lay their hands on, and then sold them -
back to the Greeks!
The looting didn't last long however; the Greeks
hurried to transport their guests over the Bosporus -
the strait separating Europe from Asia, and the
Christian world from the Moslem world. They were
then on their own; the Byzantines did not join in the
campaign to liberate the greave of Christ.
The most horrible part lay ahead: an unprepared army
cannot long survive in an alien land. Of course, they
didn't defeat the Moslems. The chronicles of this
crusade say simply that "The bones of the Christians
were heaped in mountains".
Mountains of bones were the result of the Pope's
policy.
The Church, incidentally, needed no military
victories. Even the taking of Jerusalem by the
crusaders in 1099, and the massacres, arranged by the
Christians in the Holy Land, that took place in the
homes of Jews and Moslems, didn't cheer the Pope.
He regarded them as he would a toothache which just
has to be endured. What could the real generals -
Count Raymond of Toulouse, who led the troops from
Southern France; Hugo Vermandois; Duke Robert of
Normandy; Gottfried of Boulogne, and others - do?
They had no special rights in the Pope's army. They
set aside their fears and risked everything; and, at
first, they were victorious. But only at first.
Eventually, the Moslems would defeat the Catholics
utterly, and the slave markets of the East would
overflow with new human wares. Which is what the
Pope secretly wanted.
There would be other crusades later, in 1148 and
1191. They ended the same way. This would happen
again and again. In 1212, there was the Children's
Crusade. Tens of thousands of children set off to
perish in the Holy Land. The Pope's servants led them
not to Jerusalem, but directly into the slave markets of
Egypt.
Europe lost millions of people during this period. On
the other hand, though, the Church would amass tons
of gold in exchange for its human merchandise.

The triumph of the Roman Catholic Church began

with the suffering of the people. It had won the
crusades. The power of the nobility, the Pope's main
enemy, was at an end. Dejection reigned in the cities
of Europe.
It was at this time that new Papal troops entered the
arena - the knights' orders of the Templars and the
Hospitallers. They supplemented the monastic orders
that had served the Pope for centuries.
The Templars began to conduct trade and to lend
money on terms favourable to themselves.
Meanwhile, the Hospitallers began caring for the sick
and wounded. They were responsible only to the
bishops; secular officials had no authority over them.
Were these new monks really so harmless? Under
their white cloaks, the Templars secretly wore armour
and carried weapons. For the time being, they
remained hidden.
And so, soldiers became servants of the Church. Their
power was without limit. In every one of his sermons,
the Pope suggested to the laity that it was, of course,
on account of their many sins, their fault that the
Crusades were unsuccessful.
The faithful agonised over their own imperfections.
Most certainly, God had abandoned them.
Was it not at this time that the word "feudal" came
into common use? Each nobleman, major and minor,
felt he had lost something of his rights and power. In
hiding from their shame, people sought to be alone:
they locked themselves away behind the walls of their
castles and avoided guests.
It became a time of solitude and reflection.
Some noblemen left their hereditary estates and
entered monasteries. Some monks fled into the forests
and became hermits. All decent people in Western
Europe prayed for their sins - whether actually
committed or not - to be forgiven.
They prayed, fasted, tortured and flogged themselves.
The land, the castles, the palaces - all fell improbably
in price. The peasants were handing over their
livestock and harvests to the landlords almost for free.
Someone, however, was buying up all this discarded
wealth - those silent servants of the Pope, the
Templars. It was at this time that the Church became
fabulously rich; this was yet another result of the
Crusades.

Gentiles and Knights

A madness hung over Europe.

It would mark an entire era - the era of the Crusades.
Art, science, and morality would go into decline, and
the people would become desperately impoverished.
The Church, like a winepress, came crushing down on
society, and no one dared resist it. Everyone kept
silent.
People lived from prayer to prayer, from fast to fast;
even their own thoughts were no longer theirs. The
peoples of Europe became toys of the Pope. For the
latter, this was not enough. He feared that the
"madness" would pass, and the people would see
through it all. He therefore began readying an army.
His own, special corps. Not an order of monks, but an
order of warriors. Its creation was a step that had long
been considered.
It all began far, far away. The idea itself was a stroke
of genius: thousands of peaceful pilgrims had been
sent to Palestine - in and of itself, a harmless enough
undertaking. Great multitudes rushed to see "the land
Our Lord trod". Religious fervour enveloped towns
and villages during the Crusades like the smoke from
a fire.
The Pope's people awaited them in Jerusalem. They
incensed the pilgrims with things like: "Our enemies
control the holy places." The pilgrims seethed with
fury and malice. They themselves began talking about
new crusades, about protecting the Church, about
raising a Papal army.
They began proposing such things to the Pope
themselves.

The Church played upon the tender chords of the

human soul. People obediently did whatever the Pope
wanted; they were marionettes in the hands of a
skilled puppeteer. He even filled their heads with his
thoughts. He said, for example, that in Palestine in
1099, the crusaders saw St. George on horseback, a
severed head held under the warrior's arm. This was
labelled a miracle, and St. George was declared to be
a crusader, a knight, and a servant of the Pope.
This event was clearly fictitious from beginning to
end, but it nevertheless entered the history of the
Church. There soon appeared another legend about St.
George: the warrior was placed on a horse's back and
forced to slay a dragon.
Once again, the slaying of a dragon. Once again, a
blow aimed at Turkic history. Once again, the
sneaking act of a coward.
In accordance with the will of the Church, Jargan, the
holy figure of Desht-i-Kipchak, became a mounted
assassin. The Pope needed him this way - cruel,
bloodthirsty, murderous - because Turkic Europe
remembered him differently, as a nobleman. There
remained, for example, an old Anglo-Saxon legend
that was documentary evidence of George's execution
in Derbent. In England and other countries, fealty was
sworn in the name of St. George. The Turkis had
never forgotten their patron spirit.
The Pope remembered him well, too. He therefore
wanted to make the Turkic hero his servant - a
crusader, a killer.
Ever since 498, George had been alien to the
Catholics; he was now brought closer, and an army of
knights was created - for him, not for the Pope. This
was the latest ruse of the Church; and, like all the
others, it was believed.
A new class was then declared in Western Europe -
the knights. St. George the Dragon Slayer became
their holy patron.

It should be noted that there had been knights in

Europe earlier. They were servants of the nobility -
horsemen, clad in armour. In battle, they covered the
rear of their master. A martial life was the lot of the
knight. His profession was the arts of war. This is how
it had been ever since the 4th century, since the
coming of the Kipchaks.
The knights' masters were called "gentiles"; it is from
this word that the modern term "gentleman" is derived
(gentile - gentilman - gentleman). Rome first heard
this Turkic word in 312; it referred to those of noble
birth.
Gentiles, as the historians of those times wrote, at one
time served in the army of Rome, then moved on to
conquer the whole of the Empire. They prided
themselves on their foreign exalted station and
guarded it zealously.
Who were these people?
Much has been written about them, but the most
important detail is always omitted: they lived
according to Turkic laws - the laws of the yurts and
the khanates. In other words, with their authority.
Inside the Empire, this is where their "foreign exalted
station" lay. It was the Khan who ruled there. He was
called king, duke, or count, and the lands of the yurt
were divided among barons.
The gentiles' customs were indistinguishable from
those of the Great Steppe. The people believed in
Tengri, so the Catholics called them pagans. They
spoke Turkic and fought on horseback. They never
travelled anywhere on foot. They were Kipchaks;
everything about them was Kipchak.
Ulus? Yurts? Hordesmen? What did they call
themselves? We no longer know. In the 12th century,
they already had Latin names. Their Turkic
sobriquets, however, remained. For example, the
famous Sir Lancelot had a domestic name - Telegi.
The legendary French knight Charles the Bold was in
fact called Temir - or, as the French now write,
Temeraire. He was the Duke of Burgundy. It also
turns out that King Charles the Great, the founder of
France, was known in his lifetime by a completely
different name, if one is to believe the documents of
those times. His name was pronounced Charla-mag,
which in Turkic means "call to glory". This is how it
has been preserved in, for example, England, where
he is known as Charlemagne. Latin historians later
altered many historical names to their own, Latin
manner - and History lost much of its former colour.

The gentiles, once they became dukes and kings, liked

to sit on the floor with their legs drawn up under
them. In the chronicles of those times, a note has
survived that the French King Louis I, the Pious,
received guests in just such a fashion.
The floors of his castle were covered with carpets,
while piles of pillows were stacked in the corners.
Towards evening, the tents (epervier) would be set up
in his bedrooms with beds put in them. Indoors, he
walked around barefoot in an embroidered caftan
(sapan). His palace contained lodgings for guests and
separate quarters for women. Alongside the hearth
stood the figure of the dwelling's guardian spirit.
Figures exactly like this were made in the Altai, and
of felt also.
The gentiles' feasts were identical to those in Attila's
palace. Everything was the same: the horseflesh, the
kumys, the airan (sour clotted milk diluted with
water); the throne, the jesters, the same Eastern
dishes, the same songs and entertainment. True,
mounted servants appeared in the halls of the palace;
this was indeed something new. Food was brought
directly to the table, to the delight of the guests. Folk
customs - they never change!
One can say that the funeral ceremony for gentiles
was the same as the Kipchaks': the deceased's horse
was buried along with him. Their bodies were
embalmed according to Altai custom. This is how the
English King Edward III was buried in 1376, the
French Count Gaston of Foix in 1391, and many other
important liege lords. They departed this world like
true Kipchaks.
The Church then forbade burial with one's mount. No
more burial mounds would be seen in Western
Europe; they disappeared forever.
Until the 15th century, the European Kipchaks
remained true to their ancient rituals. They were
followed down to the smallest details. Feasts were
held following funerals, and faces would be shaved
and hair plucked out in grief. Everything remained as
it had been under Attila, and everything would
eventually be forbidden.

Gentiles considered it a disgrace not to keep one's

word, or to insult a woman. For such offences, knights
beat the guilty one with their fists; he was beaten until
his helmet would slide off his head. They had the fist
law, which helped to settle much.
They would help each other, however, without
question. And God forbid that they should either sell
or lend something. One wouldn't even be beaten for
this; the guilty one's helmet would be torn off his head
and flung onto the ground. This signalled the loss of
his honour; the offender ceased to be a gentile, and his
horse was taken away from him. The only choice
open to him after this was either to commit suicide or
become someone else's hired man.
Also dishonourable was a mesalliance, or an unequal
marriage.
Marriage contracts were concluded with the families
of such warriors. There was no place for aliens here:
one had to have four generations of gentile ancestors
behind oneself in order to enter into their society and
become one of them.
People not of noble birth, along with foreigners, could
evince themselves; they were given that chance. A
feat of arms would make the courageous one the
progenitor of a new noble family. The khan (or king)
would give him a mark of distinction - an award, or
order. Once having been dubbed a "noble man", he
would then be received into the gentiles' society.
The eldest son would inherit his father's title. Only
after his own feat of arms, again recognised with an
order, was he granted the right to transfer the noble
title to his own children. A new noble family would
then appear.
This was not enough, however, to become a member
of the nobility. The family received all of a gentile's
rights only after two more generations of honourable
service. The higher the order, the greater the rights.

It was hard work, being a Turkic nobleman. One had

to live according to a code of honour in which no false
step was forgiven. For example, to drop or dip one's
banner was considered a most heinous disgrace, and
amounted to one's own voluntary death.
A man's life was worth less than a farthing among the
gentiles, since they valued neither life nor earthly
riches - only honour and courage. Youth were trained
for combat from childhood.
A boy, even if he were of the most noble birth, would
be sent to serve as a page at the palace of another
gentile. The chores of a page were traditional: looking
after his master's horse, cleaning his weapons, doing
military exercises and cutting the withes. He would be
beaten mercilessly for any transgression.
In the Great Steppe, this was called atalyk. Both Attila
and Aktash went through it, as well as every other
Turkic boy who grew into a famous general - even
Aetius.
One cannot live without such labours - and one
certainly cannot become a man. One must love one's
work.
A boy would labour on; he would grow up, waiting
for a chance to prove himself - to win a tournament
among his peers, to distinguish himself in the horse
races at a royal wedding, or even better - to triumph in
a real battle. This was the dream of every page in
Western Europe - and of every ulan (a young mounted
warrior) in the Great Steppe.
In coming up with the knights' orders, it was as
though the Church had looked into the dreams of
every young Kipchak. It made these same gentiles
"knights" - "Defenders of the Church". This is
essentially what happened after the Crusades. The
meaning of the words was altered slightly, and
everything changed: the feudal lords became servants
of the Church.
Having created new symbols that immortalised the
knights' noble birth, the tamga was dubbed a "coat of
arms". It is highly instructive that the sign of Tengri -
the equilateral cross - remained on many of these
devices. Not a Latin symbol - a Turkic one.
Three colours - red, white and blue - adorned the
knights' banners. These were also ancient symbols of
the Altai, the three colours of the Eternal Blue Sky.
The Turkis praise heaven to this day with ribbons of
these colours.
Almost everything was altered at this time. But no one
was able to really change anything.
The culture of the gentiles remained; the new once
again became the old. The knights' tournaments were
definitely transformed.
Earlier, whole provinces of commoners would turn
out to watch these mock battles between gentiles. The
fighters would take their time getting ready. The
things they came up with were amazing: each
tournament was a veritable parade of arms, a display
of the military arts. The spectators, assembling for the
festivities of strength, argued over the merits of the
combatants, placed bets, and hawked their prizes.
Hunting falcons were sometimes offered as
tournament prizes; more often, though, the prize was a
kiss from a noblewoman, a lady. For one of these,
knights were prepared to go through fire and water.
Tournaments occasionally turned into real battles. For
example, in 1274 King Edward and his English
knights had a go at the Count of Chalons and his
Burgundians. They fought quite conscientiously -
many Papal knights were lost in this battle, and they
were eventually forced to yield. The Pope used this as
an excuse to outlaw all tournaments. He ordered all
those who violated this ban excommunicated from the
Church, and forbade their burial in consecrated
ground; they were to be ruthlessly oppressed.
The tournaments, however, were by no means ended -
nor could they have been. They were a school of
courage, and not only for the young. The Pope then
ordered that the fighters go into battle with lighter
armour, and that their weapons deliberately be
blunted. Everything was at once reduced to play-
acting, and the tournament was transformed into
theatre - nothing more than a pretty show.
This meant death for the professional warrior caste:
the abolition of actual fighting led to disaster. Once
they were used to mock combats - theatrics - knights
began losing real battles. Tragedy, as is well-known,
always happens unnoticed.

The descendants of the khans also failed to notice how

they had learned to hold the stirrup for the Pope
whenever he mounted his horse. They, the nobles of
the Turkic people, having become servants of a living
person, perished.
No, it was not the knights who perished then, but the
Kipchaks of Western Europe. Their nobility. Because
the nobles dipped their banners, and this was death.
A nation should dip its banner only to God. For Him,
and only for Him, may one hold the stirrup. Turkic
speech was heard less and less often in the knights'
castles in the 13th throughout the 14th centuries, until
it died out - forever.

The Seljuk Turkis

During the Crusades, the East took Byzantium's place

as the Devil's offspring. Many reasons were found to
hate the Moslems. It turned out that they revered the
cross, Jesus Christ (Isu), Moses (Musu) and St.
George (Djirdjis), and it was difficult to come to
terms with these inequities. The West felt vulnerable.
It should be noted that at this time the East and the
West were not very different from one another. They
just seemed different; the traditions of Tengri were
being carried on in both, the Turkic service to God
lived on in both.
It was politics, not religion, that divided the people.
The Pope, having become head of the Christians, now
wished to become head of the Universe as well. He
was dubbed nothing less than The Intermediary
Between God and His People, Christ's Deputy on
Earth. Another view of the future was held in the
Caliphate, however: it did not want to be transformed
into a colony again. So the East, knowing the
disposition of the Roman Catholic Church, began to
distance itself from Rome even farther.
Earlier, when the Catholics and the Moslems had a
common enemy Byzantium - they did not look for
differences between themselves. Sultan Seljuk, the
founder of the Caliphate's new dynasty, in conquering
Eastern Byzantium, marched almost all the way to
Constantinople, but didn't touch the city.
In the 11th century, under Sultan Alp-Arslan, the best
lands in Asia Minor de facto subjected themselves to
the Caliphate, and once again, the Arabs did not touch
Byzantium. Why did they let such a prize slip through
their fingers? The country was hanging by a thread
and could have become easy prey militarily. The
Moslems did not take it, though, because they had
given the Byzantines the right to choose their own
religion - and, subsequently, their fate.
Once they were acquainted with Islam, almost all the
Christians in the eastern provinces of Byzantium
accepted it, and did so voluntarily. This, of course,
had repercussions within the country: the word of the
Emperor became a hollow sound. Palace intrigues and
coups d'etat began. Byzantium was growing weaker
before one's eyes.
The Caliphate, however, still did not interfere. It
waited.

The Catholics used the lull in the storm to launch a

new Crusade. It was the fourth; by now, they no
longer even thought about the Holy Land. In 1203,
their fleet dropped anchor near Constantinople.
Almost 20,000 crusaders disembarked and began
setting up camp. The Army of the Pope stood before
the city - knights wanting to settle the fate of the
Byzantine throne in one fell swoop.
They didn't settle anything, however. During
negotiations, the Greeks lied to them. Realising they'd
been deceived, the crusaders prepared to storm the
city.
To anyone else, an attack would have seemed absurd.
The huge city had an enormous army: 100,000
soldiers, made up of Norse mercenaries and Kipchaks
from Eastern Europe. They hadn't been paid, however,
and they didn't want to fight. Even though the army
was huge, it might just as well not have been there.
Time was on the side of the knights: their bravery
paralysed the enemy with fear. And not just bravery.
The Pope knew that the end was nigh for the empire
of the Greeks. It was disintegrating; the people were
at a crossroads of faith and there was no unity among
them. If this were so, they could be taken barehanded,
with a minimum of forces. This time his assessment
would be absolutely correct.
The order was finally sounded. On April 9, 1204,
under a deafening roar of drums, the crusaders hoisted
their banners. The storming of the city - or, more
accurately, the battle between David and Goliath -
began. The tiny fleet sailed against the huge giant.
The attack was repulsed. Three days later, however, a
new attack was launched. And the giant fell.
The feast of the victors began. It went on for a long
time: for two weeks, Christians killed other
Christians. Women and children were tortured.
Mountains of corpses filled the streets; there was no
time to bury them. Constantinople, where no enemy
had ever set foot, surrendered to the mercy of the
Papal sword.
There was enough booty for everyone. Valuables
filled sack after sack. As one eyewitness wrote, "not
since the beginning of the world had so much been
looted in one city…. He who had earlier been poor
became rich and propertied".
Pope Innocent III rejoiced upon hearing that the
Greek capital had been taken. However, he wrote an
angry letter to the crusaders. This was a deliberate
deception. In cursing them, he praised them - and he
praised himself.
The crusaders gave Byzantium a new name - the Latin
Empire, in honour of the Pope. On May 9, 1204,
Baldwin of Flanders was elected Emperor. The new
country wasn't too successful, though: it soon
perished, due to its own weakness, and split into
different commonwealths and khanates. Its ports
passed into the hands of the Templars - the new
masters of the Mediterranean Sea.
From this time on gold from the trade with the East
flowed into the Pope's coffers.

Of course, the Moslems could have intervened in

these events. The Caliphate's army was never far
away, and a troop of knights would have been no
match for it. It made absolutely no move, however.
The treasures of Byzantium held no attraction for the
Arabs. For the East they remained cold and alien.
As before, the star of Enlightenment dawned over the
East of the Middle Ages. Once again, gold was not its
main aim. The Moslem rulers devoted themselves to
architecture, art and the sciences. Whether this was
good or bad is not for us to say. But it was clearly not
gold that ruled among them.

…The inheritors of Byzantium declared themselves

the Trapezus and Nicaea empires. True, the word
"empire" is, perhaps, a bit too strong a term for them.
We are talking here of two very small countries. In the
former, the relatives of the Georgian kings held
power; in the latter, the Greeks.
Trapezus was supported by the horsemen of the
Queen Tamara. She had placed as rulers there her
distant relatives, the brothers Alexius and David, who
had adopted the name "the Grand Comneni". It was
said that their clan came from the Kuman ("Swan")
Steppe, which lies between the Don and the Dnieper,
in the very heart of Desht-i-Kipchak. Everyone there
was called kumani or komani. Their guardian spirit
was the swan.
The relative of the Brothers Comneni was famous for
having founded the Batchkov Monastery. Georgian
youths from noble families would be brought here -
once again, to the Great Steppe - to be educated. The
ruling brothers were themselves blue-eyed, fair-haired
and very handsome, like all Kipchaks.
It was no accident that the Comneni should have
appeared in the Transcaucasus.
In the 11th century, King David the Builder invited
40,000 families from Desht-i-Kipchak to come and
settle in the Transcaucasus. Turkis, who made up the
backbone of his army, had brought all the little
principalities together into the unified state of
Georgia. Or, more accurately, Gyurdji, as it and the
blue-eyed Georgians who radiated the warmth and
strength of the Great Steppe were called. It was the
Golden Age of the Transcaucasus, and its neighbours
learned of a new land; every second princely clan
there had Turkic roots.
In 1118 King David himself married a second time, to
the sister of a famous Kipchak, Khan Konchak - the
same Khan Konchak who captured the Russian Prince
Igor and held him for ransom. And the man who made
Queen Tamara happy was also a Turkic khan -
Utamysh….
With the arrival of the Turkis in Georgia, a new script
appeared: mkhedruli, or "the warriors' handwriting".
Like Turkic script, it had 38 letters. On the surface, it
recalled the writing of the ancient Turkis. The
possibility cannot be excluded that the rulers of the
Trapezus Empire wrote their orders and decrees in it.
As politicians, these two ruling brothers turned out to
be too intolerant. They had courage, but not a great
deal of skill. They could have won, but lost instead.
For in life one cannot live without a faith and without
allies. In a word, like birds caught in a cage, they
became vassals of the Caliphate in 1215.
In tribute every year Alexius paid the Sultan 12,000
gold coins, 500 horses, 2,000 cows, 10,000 sheep and
50 sacks of various goods. Most important, he was
obliged to hold the Sultan's stirrup whenever he went
riding.
Trapezus ignominiously fell from the orbit of world
politics: like a meteor, it flashed and burned out in the
sky.
The Seljuks could have decided the fate of all
Byzantium's successors then and there. However, a
new force appeared in the world - one which grew
ominously, like a storm cloud on the horizon.
Its name was Genghis Khan.

Genghis Khan

After Attila, the Turkic world was dying slowly. It

was engulfed in internecine strife. From Baikal to the
Atlantic, from Muscovy to the Indian Ocean, trouble
was always afoot. Turkis preyed upon Turkis for
centuries and without mercy.
Almost all the wars that were fought following the
collapse of Rome were their wars. Kipchaks served in
all the warring armies - some for the Italians, some for
the Byzantines, some for the Arabs - and still others
for themselves, or for someone else.
War had long since become the nation's way of life.
In the 5th century, having been deprived of its future,
Attila's empire was split by petty squabbles. Internal
troubles weakened the Caliphate, too.
The Moslems had once had a strong army. They were
unrivalled in politics, science and the arts. Many
things happened to change this, however. They were
not, though, done in by disputes among their rulers;
these have always been and will always be. No, the
fate of the Caliphate was decided by a single blow
dealt from the East. The Arabs themselves had
summoned it.
It was the Altai that dealt them the killing blow.

After the Great Migration of the Peoples, the Altai

was an island lost in an ocean. It was as though
mankind had forgotten all about it. They knew about
the Roman Empire, Byzantium and the Caliphate;
about the Altai they knew nothing.
It then reminded the world of itself.
It was reminded by the birth of a great Turki, a genius
for all times and peoples. His parents named him
Temuchin. The boy was born in Delegun-Buldak, a
holy place on the banks of the Onon. The Kerulen
meadows were the first see him. The child's father,
Yesugei-bagatur, ruled in the foothills of the Altai. He
upset his envious foes too greatly, however, and they
poisoned him.
They wanted to kill the dead ruler's family as well. In
their way, though, rose his son with a sword in his
hand. The brave lad was just 13 years old. However, a
sweeping flame blazed in his eyes and his face glowed
with the radiance of victory. His enemies, having got
a good look at him, were fairly taken aback with
surprise. This saved the boy, and they let him go
without touching him.
He went very far away. He lived in the forest, hunting
and fishing to stay alive. He grew into a strong young
man, and gathered a number of warriors around him.
Years went by, and the name of Temuchin was
spoken with trembling voice: even mature warriors
bowed before the youth's intelligence and
fearlessness.
Everything occurred just as in the legend of At-syz:
the disposed son set off into a foreign land to make a
name for himself. This is indeed what happened.
The youth restored the glory of his father. From the
skull of the man who had poisoned him Temuchin
made a winecup. The Turkis would say from that time
on: "The heart of any matter can be seen, once it is
finished for good."
Only then did Temuchin acquire power over the Altai.
He was dubbed Genghis Khan; that is, the Great
Khan, the Unbending Khan. No other name would
have suited him. The new ruler would seek to restore
an ancient state - the Great Altai.
The first thing he did was put an end to the internal
strife that had rent the people. He put together a code
of laws (they were called yasa, tura and adat) and had
them read out to the people. The "Yasa of Genghis
Khan" punished trickery, treason, failing to come to
the aid of a warrior on the field of battle, and thievery.
The penalty for violating the Yasa was death. This
was how criminals were dealt with in the Ancient
Altai, and this is what Genghis Khan would do, too.
The Turkis would remember their ancestors.
Everyone was at once made just to everyone else: the
deaf began to hear, the blind to see, the mute to speak.
Both ruler and slave now lived according to the Yasa;
internal strife was no longer even thought of. "The
word of my lips shall be my sword," declared Genghis
Khan. Everyone understood exactly what he meant.
The Yasa of Genghis Khan was the Constitution of
the Altai; at least, that's what it would be called today.
No one in the world observed the law as strictly as the
Great Khan himself. Even his enemies couldn't stop
talking, once they saw how just his rule was.
Everyone knew that punishment was unavoidable.
There would be no indulgences - not for anyone.
Genghis Khan's greatest achievement, however, was
not the Yasa. "People of different faiths should live
together in peace," he proclaimed. "We shall once
again be brothers." This lucid thought had not
occurred to any other world leader: everywhere, in
both the West and the East, religion divided nations
and caused them to quarrel with one another. Here, in
contrast, it united them.
It is striking, indeed: Christians and Moslems argued
over whose faith was better, while the Altai Turkis
reminded them of the One and Only God who created
the world, and of His religion. "What does 'better'
mean?" they asked themselves and others. "He is in
Heaven, He sees all, He judges all. The world is
perfect, because it is ruled by the Almighty."
The faith of Tengri promulgated by the Altai also
united its different peoples under the banner of
Genghis Khan and inspired confidence in his
government. People of different religions became
aware that they all had but one Father - the Almighty.
There is evidence that even Englishmen came to serve
the Great Khan. It is possible that they no longer
called themselves Turkis, but they came to fight for
the faith - the pure faith - nevertheless. This fact is
very instructive, for Genghis Khan allowed his
subjects to practise Christianity, Islam or Buddhism as
they chose - only, however, after praying to Tengri.
"One must believe in God in one's soul," he said, "and
victory will be yours."
The Khan understood this truth when he reached the
age of 27. It was then that he reconciled the
quarrelsome Turkis. He was dubbed Sutu-Bogdo, the
"Son of Heaven".
The Turkis had once again become a Nation.
Genghis Khan and his people are sometimes called
Mongols. However, eyewitnesses related that the
Great Khan had blue eyes and a red beard. His father
had green eyes, hence his sobriquet "the Green-eyed"
(Bordjigin). Father and son were both of a distinctly
Kipchak appearance. Who were they in fact?
Certainly not Mongols!
The word Mongol, as the Mongolians themselves
have made clear, first appeared in the 11th century. It
referred not to a specific nation, but to certain tribes of
eastern Turkis - the Tele. Why? Unfortunately, many
details here are not clear. It is possible that, by calling
themselves "Mongols", these tribes wished to
distinguish themselves from the western Turkis of the
Altai, with whom they were constantly at odds. Or,
possibly, the answer lies elsewhere.
In any case, though, it was in 1206 that Genghis Khan
announced: "The people that has allied itself to me
against all others; the people that has armed my
powerful thoughts with their great strength…. I wish
for this people, pure as mountain crystal, to be known
as the Keke-mongol ('Heavenly Fortune')."
It would seem that this was the origin of the word
"Mongol". On the lips of Genghis Khan it meant not a
nation, but "fortune, sent from Heaven above". There
was great portent in this word; it proved to be well-
founded.
Genghis Khan, a Dinlin Turki, was received by his
brothers, the Tele Turkis, and became their ruler….
On this occasion it was said in the Altai that "He has
sold his sword in order gain a name."
This was exactly what Genghis Khan's forebears had
done a thousand years earlier in leaving to serve in
foreign lands. They had gone to the Parthian kings, to
the rulers of Persia, India and Egypt. And in these
places, they, the anonymous sons of the Altai,
founded more than one ruling dynasty. From their
midst had come other noble lords of Asia and Europe.
"I am a wandering warrior-emperor," said Babur, the
future Grand Mogul, in setting off on the long road to
fame and fortune.
We should note that the words "Mongol", "Mongal"
and "Mogul" were fully identical in meaning during
the Middle Ages. It was simply that different peoples
pronounced them differently.
…The first to learn of the might of Genghis Khan
were the Chinese, to whom the Turkis of the Altai had
paid tribute for many centuries. The Chinese Emperor
marvelled at the emissaries of the Great Khan, once
they had arrived at his palace; he was amazed by their
demand, which was as clear as day. The Altai would
itself decide what tribute to pay to the Emperor, that
"most insignificant of people".
Upon hearing this message, the Chinese were struck
dumb.
The Turkis soon returned their powers of speech,
though. Having breached the Great Wall, they
marched into the Celestial Empire and surrounded
ninety cities. They then took all ninety. The huge
Chinese army groaned with its own powerlessness.
The Turkic cavalry smashed it and then quickly
disappeared. Genghis Khan's troops always appeared
unexpectedly - suddenly, whenever the enemy least
suspected it. They would always disappear to whence
they had come.
In small detachments, the invaders moved about the
unfamiliar countryside as if it were their own. How
did they manage this? It is customary to think that the
Chinese invented the compass, but this isn't so. They
had no compasses; only the Turkis did. This helped
them orient themselves in an alien land.
They also could not have navigated without the
wisdom of Genghis Khan. The far-sighted general
knew the cities and roads of China very well, almost
as though he had seen them himself. He made war
with the help of maps, drawn up on his orders. Sitting
in his headquarters inside the Horde, he knew what
lay ahead for hundreds of kilometres.
His troops advanced with confidence; reconnaissance
- another of Genghis Khan's achievements - worked
impeccably. For this reason there really was no war,
as such. The Chinese were dealt blow after blow -
always unexpectedly and always at their most
vulnerable point. The Turkis needed no large army.
Nothing remained for the Emperor's underlings to do,
except to receive Genghis Khan's emissaries
themselves and agree to pay tribute. A Chinese
princess was sent to the Lord of the Altai, along with
3,000 horses, 500 young men and the same number of
girls. Copious amounts of gold and silk were also
paid.
In the conquered part of China, Genghis Khan
appointed his own governor and charged him with
completing the subjugation of the country.

What might one have expected to see in the prostrate

country? Grief, fires and suffering? No. A show of
grandeur and the might of one's army? No, again.
Genghis Khan would not have been the wisest of the
wise if he had not displayed his select nature in a
foreign land as well. God revealed to him everything
that ordinary people failed to notice, even though it
lay in plain view.
It is said that the Chinese gave a fireworks display in
his honour, with firecrackers, skyrockets and other
incendiary devices. Millions of people had seen these
over the centuries and they held little wonder for
them. Genghis Khan, however, marvelled at them. He
did so because he saw not firecrackers, but firearms.
Pyrotechnical weapons, the likes of which no one had
ever known or even imagined. The Chinese held in
their hands the key to the medieval world -
gunpowder - and they didn't even suspect it.
China taught Genghis Khan a great deal. There was
much there that amazed him, from the experience of
Chinese engineers to the skill of ordinary craftsmen.
In China, the foresighted Turki ordered machines for
the taking of fortresses built; again, no one in the
world had ever made anything like them. Of course,
there had been siege engines in the army of the
Roman emperors, but they were children's toys
alongside the creations of Genghis Khan.
"To Knowledge belong the laurels," taught his
ancestors. The Great Khan remembered their words;
he had studied them all his life and was not
embarrassed by it.
His army is often written about as "the wild hordes".
No one consciously speaks of its technological
innovations - for example, about its flaming
projectiles, the forerunners of modern artillery. A
whole book would be needed to tell about Genghis
Khan, the general. He was an artist on the field of
battle, always coming up with something special and
unique. It is said that every horseman was given two
mounts, so that he could alternate them during a
campaign. The army became twice as fast and twice
as tough, and its movements twice as fast and
unexpected.
In the ordinary steppe barb he saw a new kind of
defensive weapon - the iron caltrop. The Turkis used
these to break up enemy attacks and to discourage any
pursuit.
Everything in his army was unique and inimitable,
like in the workshop of a great artist.

After China, the Caliphate was next to rise up in

Genghis Khan's way. The Sultan Muhammad, who
now ruled there, conducted himself far too
unworthily. He simply didn't know whom he was
facing.
The Sultan looked like a slave who had stolen his
master's clothing. In fact, his forebears had once been
slaves of the Seljuks and had turned against them. He,
too, behaved the way they had, and bore himself like a
slave. Insulted by his misdeeds, the Moslems
themselves turned to Genghis Khan for help - to the
"Great Defender of All Turkis", as they wrote in their
petition. They had had enough of the sultan with the
soul of a slave.
Genghis Khan, however, did not want to go to war
against the Moslems. Instead, he suggested a joint
trade along the Silk Road. In 1218 he sent a caravan
laden with valuable merchandise across the Sultan's
lands.
A slave is a slave, however, even in the clothes of a
sultan: he dreams of swindles at night, because he is
continually dishonest with himself. Sultan
Muhammad ordered an attack on the peaceful
caravan. The merchants were killed and the goods
stolen. Genghis Khan, via his emissaries, then
demanded satisfaction. Suspecting the emissaries of
being a threat, however, the Sultan ordered them slain.
Mistrust comes much too hastily when one is dealing
with a high-minded Turki. His response followed
almost immediately.
First, however, Genghis Khan, in accordance with the
ancient traditions of his people, scaled the heights of
the Holy Mountain and prayed to Tengri. For three
days and three nights he waited for an answer. For
three days and three nights not a crumb of bread or a
drop of water passed his lips. Only the wind cooled
his body, slaking his thirst.
When he came down off the mountain, his army knew
what to do. Upon seeing their General, the troops
began chanting "Ten-gri! Ten-gri!" and started to
pray. Faith truly does clear the mind, and this is what
happened on this occasion.
Seven hundred thousand horsemen were gathered
under the banner of the general and his sons - all the
Altai. In Central Asia, two great forces prepared to
meet on the field of battle. Not even in Attila's time
had the world seen such battles: the Altai against the
entire Moslem world.
Head-to-head.
The Battle of Syr-Darya began early in the morning
and ended only after it had become dark. The smug
Sultan lost half his army in this one battle. Only then
did this vain slave understand against whom he had
raised his hand - against an army over which a
guardian spirit had spread his wings.
"The Day of the Wrath of the Lord has arrived," the
Moslems began to say.

Fergana, Otgar, Khojent, Bukhara, Samarkand -

Genghis Khan took virtually all the cities of Central
Asia. His siege engines worked perfectly, and the
gates of the cities were smashed into splinters…. "O
people, the enormity of your sins is obvious. I have
come, the Wrath of the Almighty, the Messenger of
the all-powerful God, His terrible Retribution," said
the Son of Heaven in Bukhara, in the city's main
mosque. All bowed before him, for they saw the truth
in his words.
Heavily laden with booty, the army returned home so
that the sovereign of the Turkis might enjoy life and
his old age. In 1227, the general departed on his final
campaign - the longest one, from which there is no
return.
Tengri-khan received his shining soul.

The Sulde of Genghis Khan

They called his banner Sulde. It was the guardian

spirit of the Turkic people, its "life force" (as the word
is translated). With it they went into battle, and with it
the warriors of the Great Altai were victorious.
The Sulde and the Yasa of Genghis Khan helped the
Turkis in their darkest hours. They were the Voice of
Heaven. They gave the people confidence and
strength. Their presence was felt immediately and by
all. For example: In 1222, when Derbent, Tbilisi and
other cities of the Caucasus were taken by one of
Genghis Khan's reconnaissance elements, Khan Djebe
brought them the news of Genghis's Sulde and Yasa.
The Turkis living there subjected themselves to him,
the Great Khan's emissary, without a fight.
The people understood: he had brought them the
symbols of the holy war begun by the Altai - a war for
the rebirth of the Turkic nation!
Khan Djebe's detachment was not that large. He had
only 25,000 horsemen, but he cut a swathe from
Samarkand to the Dnieper - a feat comparable to the
campaign of Alexander the Great. However, he
accomplished many times more than all of
Alexander's army did.
How to describe all this. Contemporaries did not
understand it and historians have failed to explain it.
Was it boldness? Roguishness? Clever absurdity? All
these are possible, and more. The campaign, though,
was calculated with mathematical precision. It was
simply amazing: the scouting force rode into unknown
territory as if it were the front yard of its own home.
Once again, the compass and maps came in handy.
Once again, the force moved like a ghost - like
messengers from Heaven. Once they had encountered
it and seen its strength, none of the Kipchaks dared lift
their eyes to the banner of Genghis Khan. On bent
knee and with lowered head, all bowed before it.
Those who opposed the Yasa were simply dealt with
according to the law. This is what happened to the
Kipchaks of the Northern Caucasus who drew their
swords against the holy Sulde - and paid the price.
Unfortunately, this campaign of Khan Djebe remains
largely unstudied. Contemporary accounts differ too
widely. One chronicler might have written about it
with joy; another, not so happily - especially if he
were an enemy of the Great Steppe. Such people
would always choke on their bile whenever they
spoke of it or of Genghis Khan himself.
There is one fact, however, that cannot be denied: the
reconnaissance force entered the Khanate of Greater
Bolgaria. It rode in easily, without meeting any
serious opposition, since it followed and proclaimed
everywhere the Yasa of Genghis Khan…. This
incursion was not the invasion of an enemy, as the
horsemen were not advancing across alien territory.
They had come to liberate Turkic lands that had been
exhausted by internal strife and devastated by the
brigandage of the Byzantines.
Greater Bolgaria had been seriously ill since the 9th
century, after the Emperor Leo Isaur - to its eternal
misfortune - aligned it with Byzantium. From the very
start the Greeks "inspired" the Bolgar Turkis with
Christianity. They then subjugated them to their
Greek Church. Afterwards, they began robbing them
along the lines of the Catholics, who had seized power
over all of Western Europe.
It was no accident that one of the Byzantine emperors
had the sobriquet "the Bolgar-fighter". He earned the
name with his victory over Greater Bolgaria. The
most horrible tortures pale before what the conquering
Greeks did there. Fifteen thousand Kipchaks had their
eyes put out, so that they could not see Heaven - and
not pray to Tengri!
It was the Greeks who had set the Bolgar khans
against one another. As they began to assert their
power out in the Great Steppe, the discord among the
Turkis was to their liking. Like an enormous bonfire,
Europe's east was set ablaze by this new kind of
Greek fire.
A tragic misunderstanding enveloped the Great
Steppe.

In the heat of the general conflagration, Khan Bogur

was the first to betray the Turkic people. In 852, he -
known now as King Boris or Bogoris - having
instigated an uprising in Greater Bolgaria, committed
his treason. The rebels decapitated the heads of fifty-
two noble Turkic families. Bogur became king,
dubbing his subjects not Kipchaks, but Slavs .
To consolidate his position, this traitor brought Greek
Christianity to his people in 864-865. He took for
himself the name Michael, in honour of his godfather
-Byzantine Emperor Michael III.
The Greeks helped him, and he helped the Greeks.
The Pope had more than once had a hand in the
"illness" of the Steppe. This was, however, a
completely different story - one that was neither
particularly bloody nor cruel. It is the story of how the
soft voice of the Devil made the other Kipchaks of
Eastern Europe recognize the power of the Pope.
Following their baptism, they became Moravians,
Czechs, Poles, Austrians, Croats, Hungarians…. It is,
though, a tragic and obscure story.
In 882, the Norsemen, the allies of the Byzantines,
captured the northern part of the Khanate of the
Ukraine. Kievan Rus arose - and with it, a new
"illness" of the Steppe. Here, too, the descendants of
Attila became "Slavs" and "Christians" without even
understanding why.

…One can conclude that Genghis Khan's scouts to the

West were not sent by mere chance; it was
foreordained by History. The Great Khan knew
perfectly well what was happening in Europe. "The
Turkis must recover their lost name," he decided.
Khan Djebe and his right-hand man Subutai (Sudebei)
brought the holy Sulde from the Altai to the east of
Europe. It became the medicine for all the illnesses of
the Turkic nation. The Leader ordered his scouts to go
"as far to the west as you can, until you can no longer
find a Turki". Khan Djebe rode only forward, wishing
to resurrect the name and honour of his people. He
needed no foreign lands.
Genghis Khan's scouts made no conquests. They
quietly reconnoitred bivouac sites for the troops who
would soon arrive. From the local Kipchaks they
appointed officials - marshals - who would collect
taxes for the army and exercise authority. Everything
was put down in writing, and everything was placed
under their control. Like skilled healers, they carried
out a mundane but vital task: they treated sick lands.
Those days are now recalled by words which first
appeared then: A marshal was called a yesaul (the title
later given in pre-Revolutionary Russia to a Cossack
captain); a yamshchik (the old Russian word for a
coach driver) was the man who stamped one's
passport at a yama (postal station); and a daroga (the
origin of the Russian word doroga, or "road") was one
responsible for maintaining order and
communications along a highway. A mouse could not
have escaped the attention of Djebe and Subutai. It
was thanks to this that they restored order to
government.

In 1223, the reconnaissance force reached the borders

of the Western world. These borders were established
by the Pope - or, more exactly, by the power of the
Church, which was now fully subject to him.
Kievan Rus had been the eastern bulwark of an
invisible papal empire. It is possible it didn't even
know that by adopting Christianity, it had become a
colony of the Pope. It was here, however, in the
steppes of the Ukraine, that East and West at this time
came together. It was here, therefore, that they would
have to engage in a trial of strength, just as in the days
of Attila.
The conflict between them was unavoidable. Of
course, it started not just on account of the heinous
murder of Genghis Khan's emissaries in Kiev. It was
all much more complicated than that: a clash was
occurring between two completely different world
views - two cultures, two truths. Each was defending
itself and upholding its own way of life.
On May 30, the famous battle with the Russian
princes began. Their army was four times the size of
Khan Djebe and Subutai's detachment, and help had
been sent from Europe. Everything was on their side -
except God.
The battle began unusually. First, Khan Djebe's
element convincingly demonstrated that they didn't
know how to fight. They then pretended to be
frightened and began a hasty retreat. It was all a ruse -
a piece of military art that Genghis Khan had used
before against a superior force. The Russian princes
knew nothing of this, however, and set off in pursuit
of the enemy. Their army was soon spread out over
many dozens of kilometres. Their overwhelming
superiority melted away, like snow in the springtime.
Only at the River Kalka did the Kievan Prince
Mstislav understand what had happened; by this time,
it was much too late. It was at the Kalka that the real
battle began.
Few Russians emerged from the battle alive. Six
princes, seventy boyars and tens of thousands of their
subjects were left on the field. The reconnaissance
force easily crushed the huge army, on which the
Pope had wagered everything in declaring a "Second
Rome" in Europe's east.
The Kipchaks, having forgotten the Altai, learned a
good lesson.
True, they would eventually reply in kind - they
would get revenge for the Kalka. But without the
Russians. The autumn of that year descended coolly
upon the force of Djebe and Subutai after they had
crossed the Itil (Volga).
A response worthy of a Turki - correct?

The Yoke That Never Was

This remarkable campaign still leaves many people

perplexed: beginning with its defeat on the Kalka,
Russia would forever talk about the Tatar-Mongol
yoke. The victory of the Great Steppe did not go down
in History as either a victory or a defeat, but as the
disappearance of the Kipchak nation from the face of
the Earth.
It was simply miraculous.
Allegedly, the Kipchaks, after their great victory,
handed over their towns, villages, fields and pastures
to the defeated Russians and just went someplace else
- where, nobody knows. It is hard to imagine that a
nation of many millions simply vanished - all by
itself, voluntarily, in the wink of an eye and without a
trace. This is, however, precisely what the official
history claims.
Could such a thing have really happened?
Common sense dictates that there weren't enough
Russians in the world to take advantage of such a
princely gift; there weren't enough to populate all the
cities on the Don alone. And the Don area wasn't the
Great Steppe, just one small part of it.
Rus was a hundred times smaller than the Steppe.
So - was the "yoke", along with everything connected
with it, just made up?!

That's exactly right - it was all a lie. We know when it

first appeared: in 1823. We also know where: in St.
Petersburg. And we know with whom: a high school
teacher.
Unfortunately, there are many distortions in the
history of nations. All sorts of them. Generations of
people have grown up on them - people from whom
the truth about their ancestors and about themselves
has been hidden. As it was routine in Western Europe,
so it has been true of Russia since the 18th century.
Everything happened differently, of course.
The campaign of Khan Djebe and Subutai stopped
Genghis Khan like a bucket of cold water thrown in
his face. He understood that he couldn't win a war in
the West - the Kipchaks wouldn't let him! The same
ones who refused to recognise the Sulde and the Yasa.
In 1223, the General's interest in the West had already
died out.
As often happens in life, it was one incident that
settled the matter.
Mangush, a son of the Khan Kotyan, was once out
hunting in the steppe with his falcon. He ran into
Khan Akkubul, a long-time rival of his clan. They
could have just kept going, each on his separate way.
Had this happened, all of world history would have
turned out differently. They didn't keep going, though;
they made for each other. And, in single combat,
Akkubul killed the young man.
No sooner had the sad news reached the Dnieper - the
domains of Khan Kotyan - than he gathered his troops
and set off for the Don, to attack Khan Akkubul.
Kotyan's men had an easy time of it along the Don….
The wounded Akkubul was barely able to escape.
Lacking the strength to retaliate, he dispatched his
brother Ansar to the Altai to ask for help. It was he
who brought the "Mongols" to the Don.
This happened five years after the Battle of the Kalka;
Genghis Khan himself had died…. Thus began the
"Tatar-Mongol yoke", although there was nothing
degrading about it. Ige - the origin of the Russian
word used for "yoke" - meant "master" in Ancient
Turkic. A master had indeed appeared in the Great
Steppe - the Yasa, accompanied by the Sulde.
There was neither the disappearance of a nation nor
the invasion of a "horde of nomads". Nothing of the
sort happened. A judge arrived, one who made them
submit to the Law. The Yasa especially punished
quarrels and dissention among Turkis. The steppe-
dwellers put an end to internecine strife and restored
peace to their house.
The West set them against one another, and Genghis
Khan reconciled them. This is what really happened.

On the face of things, life went on as before - only

now, it was just a bit different.
In recognizing the Yasa, the Steppe remained "their"
principality - that is, the Turkis'. They lived on both
the Don and the Dnieper, and on the Volga (Itil) -
they, and no one else. Forty generations of them had
passed there since the time of Khan Aktash. The
Kipchaks had long since become the native people of
the Steppe.
Once they accepted the ige, they, of course, did not
change externally. Their lands, however, had already
come to be called differently: the Golden Horde, the
Blue Horde, and so on…. A new life had arrived; this,
too, left its mark.
It also left its mark in the new names for the Steppe:
they were chosen according to the colours of its
banner. Horde by now meant "a land that has
recognized the Yasa".

The sons of Genghis Khan divided the huge Altai

power among themselves, carving it up into hordes
headed by a khan. The eldest son, Juchi, got the
western lands - the Golden Horde - but sent his son
Batu there, in his stead.
He chose Sarai as the capital of the Golden Horde -
the richest city in Eastern Europe. Its fountains and
palaces delighted even the Venetians who visited
there. Sarai quickly became a crossroads of trade
routes, one into which goods from both East and West
flowed. Luxury goods of all kinds were sold in its
bazaars. The city was home to skilled artisans whose
craftsmanship astonished the Byzantines. For
example, archaeologists there have found a coffee
service of the finest handiwork, along with exquisite
gold jewellery and coins (these are now kept in St.
Petersburg, in the Hermitage).
The city was famous for its fine library and scholars -
this in the capital of the "bloodthirsty" Batu, a
"savage", as other historians have called him. The
facts, however, prove the opposite.
It is known that Batu himself was called Sainkhan by
his relatives. This was his household name; it meant
"good-spirited". He was, in fact, fat, lazy and
unsophisticated - a layabout who loved luxury and
idleness, and long talks around the dinner table. He
had not the slightest interest in warfare or military
campaigns.
Of course, Batu sometimes had to fight, and he did so
successfully. Not, however, of his own free will.
There were 300,000 horsemen under his banner -
Kipchaks from the Dnieper, Don and Itil. Among
them were "Mongols"; that is, newcomers from the
Altai, of whom there were only 4,000. They had been
sent by Batu's uncle, Khan Oktai. It was he who
appointed Subutai Commanding General of the
Golden Horde. This favourite of Genghis Khan would
also bring glory to the Horde. Subutai was a decisive
man; it was he who forced Batu to act as he thought
necessary. Nothing could make him back off.
At his insistence, the Hordesmen introduced the Yasa
of Genghis Khan to the Ryazan and other Kipchaks in
1237. In 1240 Kiev, which had not adopted the Yasa,
learned the price to be paid for such a crime. Buda
and Pest, Prague, Cracow, Pozega and other Kipchak
cities would soon follow.
Thanks to Subutai, Central Europe, home to many
Turkis, was reminded of its forebears! It was he, not
Batu, who humiliated the Polish, Bohemian, German
and Hungarian knights. He was a great master of
tactics. Europe had seen few generals of his calibre.
The elegance and ease of his great victories were
astonishing.
Subutai waged war strictly according to the covenant
of Genghis Khan. This commanded him to go forward
until he reached the end of the Turkic world. He
would conquer no others; he would reconquer only his
own. This is why, in 1238, on the road to Novgorod,
Batu's troops turned back.
They were not, of course, afraid of anyone. It was
simply that Subutai had seen that there were no Turkis
there, and this meant it was a foreign land. They
imposed tribute on it, then left.

In the 13th century, the Turkic world ended at the

Moskva River. The lands of the Finno-Ugric peoples
stretched on into the north. Foreign lands. Alien lands.
Back then, "to impose tribute" did not mean "to
conquer"; rather, it meant "to form an alliance".
"Tribute" was both an agreement and a tax. It was
neither a bloody nor a fearsome word. Genghis Khan
had ordered that weak allies were to be protected, and
Batu followed his wishes - perhaps a little too
genially.
The Yasa of Genghis Khan obliged him to protect any
city and any country in return for worshipping the
God of Heaven and for recognizing the authority of
the Khan. The Khan demanded nothing more of the
tributary - just the sincere worship of God.
This was the only tribute that Rus paid to the Golden
Horde under Batu.
In return for this the Turkis protected their tributary
from its foreign enemies. For example, the
Principality of Novgorod was protected by Khan
Aliskander. He, the son of a prince of Vladimir and a
Kipchak princess, was raised in Batu's palace and was
foster brother to his son Sartakh. Both boys grew up
listening to the songs of the Steppe.
It was horsemen of the Golden Horde that Khan
Aliskander led in his famous Massacre on the Ice in
1242; it was they who taught the "canine knights" a
lesson they would never forget. Hordesmen and not
Russians, for the Russians at this time had no army;
they sent their young men to serve in the Horde, as
their treaty demanded….
One must conclude that Khan Aliskander and
Alexander Nevsky are two completely different
people, rolled up into one man. In the 18th century,
when the history of Russia was being "adjusted", the
Khan became "Nevsky", the Russian saint. He could
not have been "Nevsky", however, since he did not
take part in the Battle of the Neva. This was fought
between the armies of the Swedes and the Finns and
did not take place on Russian territory.
Batu is also a man with a dual history. He certainly
did help the Church; under his "Tatar-Mongol yoke" it
was the Russian monasteries that benefited most of
all. Their number grew several times over across the
country. "Let those who pray to Heaven, pray to
Heaven," said the Khan.
He freed the clergy from paying taxes and
energetically built new churches; his own son,
Sartakh, was ordained as a deacon. True, Batu himself
never became a Christian, knowing that funeral
services were held in churches; he was deathly afraid
of cadavers. His wife, however, did become a
Christian.
It was apparently no accident that the Pope's agents -
Venetians, this time - spent a great deal of time in
Sarai as Batu's guests. They succeeded in inclining
him towards Christianity - he was the first in the
Horde to doubt the faith of his father and grandfather.
The Khan's actions would soon be akin to treason.

Batu twice betrayed the Horde and twice betrayed the

Turkic world.
This fat clown began to quarrel with the nobility.
They openly despised him for his betrayal of the faith
and for his laziness. At first Batu bore their contempt
in silence. He then complained to his uncle. Finding
no support there, he then began, with all the cruelty of
a weak man, to destroy those whom he found hateful.
Trouble descended on the Horde. Many heads would
roll at the hands of Batu's executioners.
The nobles quickly began to flee the country. Some
rode into the Caucasus to hide from this mad
descendant of Genghis Khan, whom they could not
kill and did not wish to see. Other nobles took refuge
in Western Europe. Still others raced to the north, to
the lands of the Finno-Ugric principalities, which
were not subject to Batu. Tver, Kostroma, Muscovy
and other forest settlements took in the newcomers
from the steppes.
It was from these newly arrived Turkic nobles that the
Russian aristocracy would emerge: the Kipchaks took
Russian names and entered into the service of the
Russian princes. Rus was fabulously enriched. The
Aksakovs, Arakcheevs, Bulgakovs, Godunovs,
Golitsyns, Kutuzovs, Kurakins, Nakhimovs, Ogarevs,
Pushkins, Suvorovs, Turgenevs, Tolstois, Chirikovs,
Usupovs…. Three hundred noble Turkic families took
up residence in Rus.
Three hundred noble families. The flower of the
future aristocracy. The very best, the most worthy.
They had left the Great Steppe and their native Turkic
world, forever. It was from them, and not from
Kievan Rus, that modern Russia came.
They, the Turkic nobles, following the example of
their ancestors, "sold their swords for the sake of a
name" and became the aristocrats of another country.
Even Russia's Romanov tsars were Turkis by blood -
their genealogy can be traced to the clan Kopyl.
Thus, through his caprice, the stubborn Batu created
Russia.

It was due to his heavy hand that the settlement of

Muscovy was transformed from a backwater into the
Principality of Moscow. It would not become famous
for trade or for its craftsmen. It would become famous
for the tribute that its new inhabitants would collect
"from all the Russias".
It would become a policeman serving the Horde.

The Inquisition

Khan Batu's campaign of 1241 frightened Europe

greatly.
The Turkic army had by that time advanced as far as
the borders of Italy, to the Adriatic Sea. It had crushed
the elite Papal troops and was wintering on the
Adriatic, preparing for the campaign against Rome.
The final outcome was merely a question of time.
Batu, of course, was not thinking of the capture of
Rome. It was simply that the Catholic Turkis who had
settled there should be subject to the leaders of their
own people, and not to the Pope. This is what was
believed in the Altai as its warriors were sent
marching into faraway Europe.

It is frightening even to think of what happened that

winter. It was truly the end of the world. There was
panic and turmoil everywhere. The descendants of
Attila awaited the Judgement that was coming from
the East. This was all they spoke of. What was it,
exactly? No one knew for certain. The Catholics were
not afraid of the "Mongols", but of the order they
would bring.
Under the new order, the Pope's presence on this
Earth would have been superfluous….
For example: the inhabitants of Gotland, in Sweden,
were so frightened that they not only stopped fishing
for herring; they quit going to sea at all, for fear of
accidentally leading Batu's army to their homeland.
All the markets were shut down, and no one cared;
indifference reigned all around.
The streets of Europe's cities were filled with people
who were blind with fear and knew neither from
whom nor where they were running. It was as though
they felt themselves guilty of a great crime - but
which one? They waited for Batu to come. Day by
day, they waited. "O God, save us from the wrath of
the Tatars," prayed the Europeans, lifting their eyes to
Heaven. A new expression even appeared in England:
"To catch a Tatar" - that is, "to encounter an
admittedly superior opponent".
No attack, however, was forthcoming.
At the beginning of March 1242, just as the campaign
was about to commence, news reached Batu's
headquarters that his favourite uncle, Khan Oktai, had
died in the Altai. Batu seemed to become an entirely
different person: lost and rushing about in tears, he
broke down completely. He didn't want to hear
anything about any campaign.
His commanding general was in a most difficult
position: without the Khan, he could neither withdraw
nor go forward. The army, ripe for a decisive victory,
stood at a crossroads. On his knees Batu tearfully
begged Subutai to let him go. There was no longer
anything left to entice the grief-stricken Khan - not
even the prospect of a quick victory.
He eventually rode off, casting his army to the whims
of fate.
In order to deceive the enemy, Commanding General
Subutai ordered his reconnaissance force to advance,
demonstrating to the Europeans that his intentions
were serious. The scouts sacked the cities they cities
they encountered - in a word, they acted firmly and
decisively.
Meanwhile, the army slowly - in order to avoid any
suspicion that they were about to flee - began to
withdraw. Subutai was a master at deception. He
declared, for example, that the Altai forgave the
European Kipchaks who had betrayed the faith of the
God of Heaven.
Only then did Europe heave a sigh of relief.

Pope Innocent IV then got down to work. He had

come up with a daring plan: he decided to turn his
enemies into allies.
This Pope was reputed to be a great lawyer and a
shrewd politician. His forbears were Kipchaks -
Langobards - and it was from them, and not from the
Romans, that he found support; the Pope came from a
long line of foreign knights. In 1245, he sent his
personal emissary, the monk Giovanni del Plano
Carpini, to the Altai - to the capital of the "Mongol"
Empire, the city of Karakorum. The aim of the visit
was of the most peaceful sort: the Pope, agreeing to
recognize Tengri, proposed that he and the Turkis
form an alliance to wage war against the Moslems.
It was a clever political move - clever, and
unexpected. He sought not war, but an alliance. So
that the Altai and the West might stand shoulder-to-
shoulder against the Moslem East, and Europe would
be saved from another invasion by the Turkis…. It
was all very well thought out.
The emissary was accompanied by another monk, the
tolmach (Turkic translator) Benedict the Pole. They
rode across the Great Steppe and saw it with their own
eyes - the eyes of spies. Their intelligence-gathering
was excellent. They wrote out a full report to the
Pope, and then a book. They were the first Catholics
to visit the Altai, and to see Eden.
Then, in 1253, yet another Papal spy travelled there:
Guillaume de Rubrouk.

In the 13th century the Church came up with a plan

that had been suggested to them by the Yasa of
Genghis Khan. It was a brilliant plan, one which they
called Inquisition. Its essence was clear and simple: in
order to avoid another attack from the Golden Horde,
it was necessary to erase forever all traces of the
Kipchaks' presence in Europe. It would have to be
done in such a way that absolutely nothing of them
remained - but how?
Camouflage! The Yasa of Genghis Khan bound one
not to make war on Europe or Europeans, but only on
those Turkis who lived there. "Go forth until you can
no longer find a Turki," it commanded. Any farther,
and one had to turn back.
This is why Batu did not march on Byzantium. Turkic
speech could no longer be heard there - but it could in
Western Europe!
The Pope's henchmen once again had the advantage.

They began talking about the Inquisition at the

Church Council held in Toulouse in 1229, after the
Russian defeat on the Kalka. It was discussed again in
Lyons in 1245, following Batu's European campaign.
The idea was first mooted by the monk Dominic, who
proposed creating yet another order - the strongest and
most terrible of all. So that it might destroy everything
Turkic; so that civil courts would be subordinate to it;
so that it could seek out the guilty and investigate
them itself, it would be, in a word, both judge and
executioner.
This is how the Dominican Order was set up. Fierce
hounds, sniffing out heresy, were emblazoned on its
coat of arms. Everything Turkic was dubbed heresy.
Of course, not everyone was happy with this decision.
Some Catholics did not want to forget the Turkic
language. They did not wish to "camouflage" their
native customs. They became the first victims of the
Inquisition. They were declared heretics.
Incidentally, the word heretic is of Turkic origin - yes,
it, too. The Catholic Turkis hadn't come up with
anything new; this was what one who rejected the
views of the Church was called. In Turkic, eres meant
"that which must be repudiated". With the help of the
Inquisition, the Catholics "camouflaged" Europe as
well.
As human beings, it is not difficult to understand
them. People now felt that they were Europeans, and
not Turkis. The Mongols were their brothers; with a
sixth sense, perhaps, they may have realised this.
Primarily, though, they saw in them people of a
different culture - one that was not European. This
now meant they were both alien and hostile. Alien
brothers…. They were as different as a prince and a
pauper.
Each, however, thought that he was the prince.
It turns out that in order to be a single people, it isn't
enough to speak one language and to share the same
roots. A common culture is needed, and there was
none; the Great Steppe had for centuries been
dissolving. In the West, it was washed away
completely. It became part of Europe. Only the
heretics, those islands in an ocean of neglect, hinted at
the past - at the Turkis.
What was that the heretics did not accept? What were
they looking for? What did they have to hold onto?
Their communities numbered in the dozens in
medieval Europe: the Bogomils, the Cathari, the
Albigensians, the Oliviti, the Eukhiti, the
Joachimites…. Some were reputed to be famous and
to have many members; others were not. They had
one thing in common, however: they all spoke out
against the Church. Or, more exactly, against the
darkness that was clouding the skies of Europe.
They explained the creation of the world their own
way; believing in the transmigration of souls, they
stubbornly refused to acknowledge that Christ was on
the same order of divinity as God. They believed that
there is but one God, and that He is in Heaven. They
did not deny the religion of Europe. They merely
pointed to the vices that the Church's people had
brought to the world.
They were outraged that priests, as they called
themselves "servants of God", were swimming in
luxury and dying from gluttony, while the people who
listened to their preaching lived in poverty.
It is apparent that these heretics were not really such
stupid people. They trusted God with the secrets of
their confessions without letting the Pope's servants
delve too deeply into their souls. In this way, of
course, they also irritated the Church.
In the south of France and in northern Italy (which, to
use a monks' expression, were "swarming with
heretics"), the Cathari became quite notorious. They
were once again called Bolgars, Khazars and even
Langobards. They, the descendants of foreign
noblemen, kept alive the faith of Tengri with their
own Church.
They were supported in Flanders and in other
countries where there lived Turkis who remembered
Tengri.
The Cathari, for example, believed that the Catholics'
ceremonies were excessively rich and sumptuous.
"God loves modesty," they insisted. These words, too,
irritated the Church - which, having grown wealthy,
now loved riches, satiety and dissipation.
It is curious that the teachings about God which the
Cathari preached in the castles of French gentles
coincided surprisingly with those that could be found
in the Altai or among the northern Buddhists…. It was
the philosophy of the East.
This is why the Church branded heretics as stupid.

It was no accident that the Cathari were the first to

suffer at the hands of the Inquisition. In 1229 they
were dealt a palpable blow: they were attacked by
crusaders.
A great deal of blood then flowed in the lands of
Count Raymond of Toulouse. The Kipchaks'
descendants fought to their last breath, but the forces
were too unequal…. "Drive him and his allies from
their castles," cried the Pope. "Confiscate their lands
and let true Catholics occupy the heretics' domains."
In these words lies the answer to the Inquisition's
other mysteries.
"Occupy the heretics' domains." The Church never
forgot this in implementing its policies - including the
Inquisition.
How did heretics differ from Catholics in the depth of
their passions? This is easy to answer. The Papal
Legate Arnold Amalrik, for example, advised: "Kill
them all, and let God sort them out."
True plunder reigned in the 13th century.
…It looks as though other Europeans secretly wished
for the arrival of the Turkic army. They knew of the
Yasa of Genghis Khan, and through their "heresy" let
their cousins in the Altai know about them. This
assertion may seem arguable, but it is not beyond the
realm of possibility. The Turkic nation could not have
died peacefully: it fought back and sought new
strength in each new generation. It was silenced
slowly: the Inquisitors "eliminated people through
death". They carried out their work well.
However, the people did not, of course, sit by
passively; they responded in kind. A long and cruel
battle was waged - a battle of life and death. In
France, Switzerland, Bohemia and Moravia, Hungary,
Poland, England, Germany and Bulgaria…. History
has preserved traces of it everywhere.

The courts made public the will of the Inquisition.

The accused sometimes did not know what he was
being accused of or who the witness to the crime was.
He was tortured horribly; then, on the town square, to
the sound of trumpets and the roar of the crowd, his
sentence would be read out. There was neither a trial
nor an investigation. The people were terrified. They
were instilled with fear, so that they would never
oppose a decision of the Church. So that they would
shrink, as if from a blow, at each Turkic word they
heard.
There were three possible sentences: "reconciliation",
"loss of property" and "prison". Those who persisted
in their heresy were burned alive at the stake.
Both people and books were burned. Whole libraries
in Turkic disappeared forever in the bonfires of the
Inquisition. For the French, English, Germans, Swiss,
and other peoples this was their own "household
language"; these were their household books. They
were the first to be burned.
Meanwhile, other valuable books were hidden in the
Church's libraries. So that no one would in the future
ever suspect they existed…. By the Will of Heaven,
something was thus preserved. In addition, certain
Turkic books and documents remain intact in secular
archives; the Inquisitors simply lost track of them.
Judging by papers that have survived entirely by
accident, the counts Fugger from the city of Augsburg
(next to Munich), still wrote and spoke Turkic in the
years1553-1555. This is also mentioned in a work by
the Hungarian historian Telegda on the Kipchaks of
Europe and their language - a book that came out in
1598.
No, this was not even a book; it was the lament of a
man whose Homeland had died.

The Descendants of Genghis Khan

Historians have long given their attention to the fact

that ancient manuscripts in Europe have survived in
fragments, as though someone consciously ripped out
pages of Time - or poured paint all over them, so that
they could no longer be read. Antiquity left behind far
more many documents than the period that followed
the collapse of Rome. This is why this era was called
the Dark Ages.
Only in the 15th and 16th centuries did these
documents appear in their full volume. What did
people once again learn how to read and write? Which
papers disappeared completely?
All those that were written in Turkic.
They were burned, for they contained everything the
Church wanted to conceal. The loss of historical
documents and their forgery are also traces left behind
by the Inquisition - its tragic result.
The heretics were destroyed by Dominican monks,
documents by the Jesuits - the members of the Society
of Jesus. This most frightening Catholic organization
was feared even by the Pope. It was subject to no one.
Its principle was: "The goal justifies the means."
The Jesuit Order was founded in 1534 by the Kipchak
Ignatius of Loyola, in order to give the Pope's servants
the best education possible. It was called the Order of
Scholars. Only educated men were admitted; they
conducted their courts and their policies with the help
of science.
They soon created their own secret empire in Western
Europe, taking the science and education in all
Catholic countries into their own hands. The Jesuits
opened schools, seminaries, and academies where
young men - their adherents - were taught. From
century to century, they painstakingly built up a new
world order - one in which the West and Catholicism
stood at the centre.
Is it really so surprising that Turkic Europe is now
forgotten?
This "Order of Scholars" ransacked the archives and
purged them, then stole and hid the testimony of the
past. Until now there is a library in the Vatican called
the Jesuit Library. It is only for members of the Order.
In it are kept priceless papers and books - those, at
least, that didn't wind up in the bonfires of the
Inquisition. They weren't burned; they were preserved
so that the Jesuits alone could know the truth about
the Dark Ages - and how best to cover it up.
It is, after all, an order of scholars.
The Jesuits translated some of the old Turkic books
into Latin. They are now well-known as books by
Latin authors of the Dark and Middle Ages. The
history of the world was rewritten by the Jesuits.
Everything has been shaken up and stood on its head.
Not even the Lives of the Saints escaped the hand of
the revisor.
The Order has been operating for almost 500 years
now. It has eaten away at the truth the way a worm
eats holes in wood. The figures tell something about
its scale: The Society has 35,000 members, and issues
around 1,000 newspapers and magazines, with a total
circulation of 150,000,000 copies, in 50 different
languages. The Order runs 33 universities and more
than 200 of its own schools. This giant empire
controls the conscience of the West.
Like air, the Jesuits are everywhere. Like air, they are
invisible.

Papal emissaries first appeared in Moscow thanks to

Ivan the Terrible, who opened its doors to them. With
their help, the Prince of Moscow prepared for war
against the Great Steppe. The Altai Empire of
Genghis Khan was doomed. No one in the history of
the world has ever withstood the onslaught of the
Pope's invisible army.

"If weak men are commanded by one who is

courageous, then they all will be courageous."
Genghis khan was courageous; he gathered the
"weak", and gave the world the Altai Empire. The
General, however, did not leave behind a worthy
successor, and the Pope's agents took advantage of
this.
The great Genghis Khan did not mention his sons on
his death-bed. "Listen to little Khubilai; his words are
full of wisdom." This was the last phrase to come
from his dying lips.
Genghis Khan's grandson, Khubilai (also spelled
Kublai or Kubla), completed his grandfather's triumph
in China; he discovered the islands of Indonesia, and
stood right next door to Australia. He became Lord of
the Far East. There was nothing left for the Chinese
Emperor to do but to thrust a dagger into his heart and
cry, "Our gods are powerless!" Everyone was
captivated by the victories of the young Khubilai.
They can, of course, be called by different names.
Not, however, "the Conquest of China", since at that
time there was no China. There were only provinces
that waged ruthless war with one another. The Turkis
welded them into a unified country. According to
legend, it was they who named China China, or
"fenced off" - a reference to the Great Wall.
Genghis Khan and his descendants thought to rebuild
the medieval world in their own way. They wanted to
build; what Attila began, Genghis Khan would
continue.
Another grandson of Genghis Khan, Hulagu (also
spelled Hulegu), completed his grandfather's work in
the Near East. He conquered no cities either, but
eradicated the sects that were corrupting Islam. He
walked the lands of the Caliphate as the grandson of
Genghis Khan - the great defender of the Faith and of
the Turkis.
In 1258, Hulagu took Baghdad, Damascus, and other
cities. However, he did not even touch either Mecca
or Medina; they were holy cities.

Did everything turn out all right for the Turkic world?
Hardly. The rays of hope flared up, then died out. Its
woes returned with Batu. There is even a saying:
"After a rise comes a fall; after a high place, one that
is low." This is how life is. Genghis Khan was a
genius; his descendants were not. They betrayed the
faith of their fathers and lost everything.
Batu dreamed of becoming Orthodox; his brother
Berke, of becoming a Moslem. Khubilai wanted to be
a Buddhist; Mamai, a Catholic. Their enemies
corrupted their souls. The great victories of Genghis
Khan ended up completely negated. Moreover, the
Turkis themselves forgot about them.
One cannot doubt God. Doubt is death.
Faith in the Golden Horde was shaken just a bit, and
its unity disappeared. It was at that moment that the
nation died, all by itself. No one actually defeated it,
no one pushed it over a precipice.
This is how the Horde fell in China:
Khubilai became a Buddhist in his old age, and took
the Chinese name Shu-tsu. In Chinese, his dynasty
was called the Yuan. Khubilai did not retain even the
spirit of the Turkis in China: he made Genghis Khan a
Chinese national hero.
The Chinese now revere their beloved Khubilai. They
remember how he sowed the backyard of his palace
with sage-brush from the steppe. And, pointing at a
tiny meadow that had appeared between two stone
walls, he told his children in Chinese, "This is the
grass of humility. As you look at it, remember your
ancestors."
In the Turkic world, the Dark Ages ended with
humility.

***

When you don't know the key to a cipher, a text

becomes a coded message. This is how the Jesuits
wrote the history of Europe and Asia - according to
the rules of cryptography. The period following the
collapse of Rome is here fore now referred to as the
Dark Ages. The Great Migration of the Peoples is
now forgotten. Turkic culture, which came to Europe
along with Attila to take the place of Roman culture,
is forgotten. It may be forgotten, but everything
remains in clear view.
Our book demonstrates this.
Absolutely nothing has been added by our artist to the
illustrations. Everything I have chosen to show is
well-known and documented. How else can one throw
light on the secrets that are hidden in the gloom of the
Dark Ages?
We have decided that "The light of truth is the best
key to a cipher!"

List of Illustrations and Commentary

Pages 8 and 11
Michel Colombe, "St. George and the Dragon."
Marble relief. 1508-1509. Louvre, Paris. The theme of
St. George's battle with the dragon entered the art of
Western Europe only around the 13th century, when,
by will of the Church, St. George became the patron
saint of knighthood. Earlier, he was not portrayed as a
mounted dragon-slayer.

Page 9
Mounted archer. Decoration from a saddle. Bronze.
7th-8th centuries. Khakassia.

Page 10
Horseman. Detail from an altar. Bronze. 4th-2nd
centuries BC. Kazakhstan.

Pages 12-13
Portrait of a man. Vessel from Kafyr-Kaly. Ceramic.
6th century. Uzbekistan.

Phidias and his Pupils. Sculpture from the Parthenon.

Marble. 5th century BC.
British Museum, London

Pages 14-15
Attacking Romans (tracing). Column of Marcus
Aurelius. Rome. Note the Romans' clothing and
weapons, their helmets, and their military tactics.
These were uniquely theirs.

Battle between steppe dwellers and the Romans.

Fragment from a relief on Trajan's Column. Rome.
Once again, the two armies could be distinguished by
their military garb, as the artist showed.

Pages 16-17
Defeated Britons. Relief from Antonine's Wall (built
during the reign of the Emperor Antoninus Pius in
Scotland. 2nd century. Here, too, the clothing of the
vanquished says a great deal.

"Julius Caesar." Green shale. Berlin. Antiquities

Collection.

Hadrian's Wall - the most northern outpost of the

Great Roman Empire. 2nd century. Great Britain.

Pages 18-19
Sculpture from the St. Nicholas Catholic Church in
Prague. The Christian Archbishop Cyril is slaying
Hypathia, the woman scholar, for her adherence to
ancient science and paganism.

Pages 20-21
Scenes from circus performance. Fragment from a
diptych. 5th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Theatre of Marcellus in Rome (1st century BC).

Drawing. 15th century.

Pages 22-23
Ancient door-handle hammer from Italy. 15th century.
Hermitage, St. Petersburg. Such door-handles could
be found in virtually every Turkic home in the
Ancient Altai. They remain unchanged to the present
day.

Statue of the Emperor from Barletta. Fragment.

Bronze. 4th century.

Pages 24-25
Falcon-shaped clasp. 5th century. German National
Museum, Nuremburg. An example of the jewellery
produced in the Great Steppe. Such works have often
been found in the burial mounds of the Don and the
Dnieper, where the secrets of jewellery-making were
mastered. Such finds from Ukraine and Russia are
now kept in a special vault in the Hermitage; this
particular clasp was found in Italy.

Snake-shaped bracelet. Bronze. 4th century. Museum

of Primitive Art, Berlin.

Bust of the Emperor Julian. Chalcedon. 4th century.

Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Pages 26-27
Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna, interior
view. 5th century.

Fragment of a find from the catacombs of Rome.

Early Christian and Byzantine Collection, Berlin.
These European cult items are the only ones that
relate to early Christianity. There were no crosses, no
icons, and no finds of any other kind in the
catacombs. Scholars have proved that the paintings on
the walls of the catacombs were done by medieval
monks. "Catacomb Christianity" began with Pope
Damasus in the 4th century.

Figure of John the Baptist from Basel. Silver with

gilded features. 15th century. Hermitage, St.
Petersburg.

Pages 28-29
"The Port in Ravenna." Mosaic from the Basilica of
Sant' Apollinare in Classe in Ravenna. 6th century.
This port was built by the Turkis for the Empire's new
capital. The city, surrounded by mountains and
marshes, had no access to dry land. Its road to the
outside world began just outside gates to the sea.

"The Good Shepherd." Fragment from a mosaic inside

the Mausoleum of Galla Placidia in Ravenna. 5th
century. This long-tailed breed of sheep was common
in the Great Steppe. Right down to the present day,
the Turkis consider it a special and very ancient breed.
Before the coming of the Turkis, goats were kept in
Europe.

Pages 30-31
Baptistery in Ravenna, built by Turkic craftsmen in
the 5th century. This is where those local inhabitants
and Kipchaks who wanted to become Christians were
baptized. This was done according to Altaic tradition,
with each person being submerged three times.

Painting of the Apostle Peter. 4th century. Hermitage,

St. Petersburg.

Pages 32-33
Visored helmet. British Museum, London. Its owner
is now unknown. There are various opinions on this
point, except the Turkic. However, it is obviously the
helmet of a knight in the service of the Khan (a
gentile) - or, more likely, of the Khan himself.

Carcassonne city walls and towers. 12th-14th

centuries. France.

Pages 34-35
Piero della Francesca. Fragment from a fresco inside
the Church of San Francesco in Arezzo. 15th century.

Pages 36-37
Baltea of Aosta. Detail. 2nd century.

Horse's helmet. From a cache found in Bavaria. 3rd-

4th centuries. Note the snake talismans, and the
warrior in Roman armour. Obviously, this was the
helmet of a warhorse whose master was a Kipchak in
the service of Rome. The blending of "steppe" and
"Roman" elements was characteristic of that era.
Thus, the first King of the Franks, Childeric (d. 482),
was interred, like a steppe dweller, in a burial mound,
along with his weapons and his richly accoutred
warhorse.

Pages 38-39
Panorama of Hradcany Castle in Prague - a typical
example of Medieval Gothic.

Pages 40-41
Fragment from the Diptych of Areobind. Ivory. 506.
Judging by the symbolism, the descendants of the first
generation of Latin Turkis are depicted here. This is
the way they looked: not yet Europeans, but no longer
steppe dwellers.

Page 43
Detail from a medieval church, built in the Gothic
style. Turkic temple architecture was the basis for the
Christian style of building; many of Europe's
architectural masterpieces are executed in this mode.
These include Cologne Cathedral in Germany,
Cathedral of Notre-Dame in Paris, the Houses of
Parliament in Brussels, and Westminster Abbey in
England.

Facade of the Church of Notre-Dame-la-Grande in

Poitiers.

Pages 44-45
Bas-relief. 5th century. Egypt. Two guardian spirits
with the wreath and cross of Tengri - which by this
time had already become a symbol of Near Eastern
culture.

Sitting figure. 2nd millennium BC. British Museum,

London. The text on this statue is engraved in
hieroglyphs, as writing was done on the banks of the
Nile. There is not even the slightest resemblance to
modern-day Arabic script.

Stone capital from the town of Sudagylan. 5th-6th

centuries. Azerbaijan. This Runic script is called
Albanian, but no one has been able to read it in that
language. Evidently, Turkic speech has not been
researched at all.

Sample of a Coptic documentary letter. Papyrus. 8th

century.

Page 47
The world's oldest icon. 4th century. Egypt. It is
commonly thought that Christ and St. Mena are
depicted here; it is to the latter that the Ancient Turkic
word apa (priest) refers. However, the first depictions
of Christ appeared only in the 7th century, after the
Council in Trullo. Consequently, Bishop Mena
accepted Christianity not from the hand of Christ but
from that of Tengri, whose image graced all the
world's icons in the Dark Ages.

Sample of a Coptic letter. Fragment of a manuscript

from Nag Hammadi. Papyrus. 4th century. These
"characters" were written by an unskilled hand;
certain of them are reminiscent of runes. Obviously,
the Egyptians were at this time just beginning to
master the new way of writing, and the language of
the new faith.

Pages 48-49
Archbishop Cyril's Dispute with a Pagan. Passage
from an unknown work. Limestone fragment. 7th
century. Egyptian Collection and Papyruses, Berlin.
Yet another example of very expressive Coptic letters.

Lion tearing a man apart. Window decoration of the

Worms Cathedral. 12th century.

Dragon-shaped lamp from Byzantium. Bronze. 4th

century.

Pages 50-51
"SS. Anthony and Paul." Coptic icon. Fragment. 17th
century. The traditions of Coptic icon painting have
not changed for centuries. It is instructive that the
episode this icon depicts is one from the period of
Egypt's baptism. Nothing had changed in a thousand
years.

Basket with sheep heads and peacocks. Column

capital found in Egypt. 8th century. Symbols which
tell a great deal, since early Islam was "Egyptian
Christianty". The Oguz were the first to separate the
Christians and the Moslems. They devised the holiday
of Kurban-bairam - the holy day when a lamb is
brought to be sacrificed to Allah. There would seem
to be nothing unusual about this; in essence, however,
it marked the break with Christianity, since the lamb
personified the Agnes Dei - Christ. Only after a
sacrifice could a man call himself a pure Moslem: his
Christian past was gone forever, along with the
sacrificed Lamb. Kurban-bairam has been the main
holiday of Islam ever since.

Pages 52-53
Mary with the Infant. Fragment of a sculpture in an
Austrian church. 16th century.

Unknown artist of Pisa. "Madonna with the Infant on

a Throne". 13th century. Pushkin Museum of Fine
Arts, Moscow. This Italian artist clearly followed the
rules of Turkic icon painting: the type of the face, an
especially fine nose, and eyes with an Eastern cast.
This is inarguably Umai. In the West, the Inquisition
changed everything. Umai was renamed the Madonna,
and a new face was created for her; the Church
ordered her whole image to be reinterpreted. This was
preceded by a long intra-Church dispute.

Pages 54-55
Pietro Perugino, "Madonna with the Infant." 16th
century. Pushkin Museum of Fine Arts, Moscow. An
example of the "new" icon art: an Infant with neither a
halo nor the sign of Tengri, and a Madonna with other
facial features. Earlier, the sign of Tengri over the
Infant signified that he was the "God's gift".
Everything given by the Almighty was considered by
the Turkis to be "God's gift". The Infant in the arms of
Umai was also a symbol of giving. Knowing about
these changes, one can understand the sense of what,
at first glance, appears to be the senseless arguments
at the Ephesus and other church councils: when
talking about Umai, the Christians argued over what
she should be called, and how she should be related to
Christ.

Coptic cloth. Fragment. 4th-5th centuries.

Miniature from "The Alexandria World Chronicle."

Papyrus. 7th century.

Page 56
Hassock with Christian symbols. Wood. 587. Saint-
Benoit-sur-Loire. Saint Croix Abbey, near Poitiers.

Pages 58-59
St. Benedict of Nursia. Miniature from the
Martyrology at the Abbey of the Holy Sepulchre,
Cambrai. Cheekbones, the cast of one's eyes, the type
of one's face, and the proportions of one's body can
tell a great deal about a person. That Benedict of
Nursia came from Turkic stock is obvious. The Saint's
face and deeds make this clear.

"A Saxon Beauty." Detail from the Cathedral of

Meissen. Stone. 1357. The Beauty also has a Turkic
face. Such faces could be seen on nearly every street
there.

"The Devil Tempting St. Benedict." Stone. 12th

century. Cathedral of St. Madeleine at Vezelay,
Burgundy.
Page 60
"Pilgrims." Drawing from "The Life of St. Jadwiga."
19th-century lithograph.

Page 62
The chateau at Azay-le-Rideau on the Indre River,
France. Swans were the castle's guardian spirits.
Every home, every clan had its own protector keeping
watch over it. This was the origin of yet another
Kipchak name - the Kuman, or "Swan People", as
they were called in Europe.

Monastic scribe. Miniature. 15th century.

Pages 64-65
Writing angel. 1210. In Ancient Greece and Rome,
poets were unacquainted with rhythm; their poems
were non-rhythmic. The tradition of rhyming lines
came to Europe from the Altai. From ancient times,
the Turkis were masters of the word; they knew how
to make lines rhyme at the beginning, the middle, or
the end of a poem. Their poems were simply
marvellous. A Kipchak who converted to Christianity,
Ambrosius (Ambrose) Mediolanensis (d. 397), has
been called Europe's first poet. He wrote hymns to
order for the Church.

Iron crown of the Langobards. Monza Treasury. This

Turkic crown is the oldest in Europe. It bears the cross
of Tengri, and was made in the Kumaniya (The Swan
Area) lands of the Don. The crown was ordered by the
Roman Theodolina, the widow of Authari, King of the
Langobards. In 774, it was placed on the head of
Charles the Great, the founder of France; it was at this
time that the word "king" (derived in many European
languages from Charles, or "Karl") first appeared. (It
too has Turkic roots.) In 1805, the crown was given to
Napoleon as a present. It is now kept in Italy.

Chess pieces. Walrus tusk. 12th century. British

Museum, London. It would seem that everyone knows
about chess, and that it came from India. The Indians,
however, are of another opinion. It is played there
only in the north, where the Turkis who came from
the Altai lived. The inhabitants of medieval Medina
had this to say: "Chess was invented by the
barbarians", that is, the Turkis.

Pages 66-67
Spears. 16th to 18th centuries. Germany.
Double stairway, executed in the Gothic style. 1499.
Austria.
Monastic scribe. Miniature. 16th century.

Pages 68-69
Feast of a count during the Carolingian Period (8th to
10th centuries). 19th-century reconstruction.

Castle of the counts of Flanders in Ghent. 12th to 13th

centuries.

Portrait of a man. Water vessel from Hungary.

Bronze. 12th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Page 71
Tombstone. Cathedral in Frankfurt-am-Main. Stone.
14th century. A mixed marriage is about to take place:
the groom is a Kipchak in European dress, but his
beard has been divided into two, in the Eastern
manner. His bride wears a brooch - an heirloom of his
clan.

Jewellery from the Prokhorovka necropolis. 5th

century BC. Kazakhstan. Exactly the same kind of
brooch, with exactly the same ornamentation, is
featured above. The ornament was once the sign of a
clan, its tamga.

Pages 72-73
Horsemen and archers on board a ship. Fragment of
embroidery from the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century.
Bayeux Cathedral. The famous Bayeux Tapestry is
embroidered with many different threads. It contains
72 scenes from the Norman Conquest of England in
1066. The Tapestry was ordered by Queen Matilda,
the wife of William the Conqueror, to commemorate
the campaign. Under Napoleon, the Tapestry was
exhibited in Paris in 1803, as both a work of art and a
historical document. It is now kept in Bayeux.

Head of a dragon. Carved wood. 9th century.

Scandinavia.

Pages 74-75
Pair of lovers. From a medieval miniature. 13th
century. Paris.

Hunting with a bird of prey in Europe. It is instructive

that Europe learned about hunting with birds of prey
from the Turkis. This was the preserve of royalty, one
which the native Europeans called "a wild
entertainment of the barbarians". The Russian word
for falcon (sokol) in Turkic means "to point one's
hand"; the Russian word for golden eagle (berkut) in
Turkic means "to fetch one's prey". Even members of
the Turkic clergy happily made time for this
exhilarating pastime.

Pages 76-77
Embarkation of troops. Fragment of embroidery from
the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century. Bayeux Cathedral.

Head of a dragon. Ornament from a Viking ship.

Carved oak. 800. British Museum, London. The
dragon was the guardian spirit of the Norsemen, their
protector. This is why their ships were often adorned
with the head of a dragon. It was from this that the
well-known sobriquet of the Scandinavians - the
Goths - was derived: in Turkic, goty meant "dragon"
or "lizard". It was the symbol of the Altai, and of all
Central Asia.

Pages 78-79
Snow leopard. Miniature from the "Bestiary".
Parchment. 12th century. Oxford. How could the
English have known about the Altai leopard? How
could they have made it their guardian spirit? This is
clearly one of the mysteries of History - or is it?

The King attends a session of the English Parliament.

Miniature from a medieval manuscript. There are two
surprising details here: the bags stuffed with wool on
which the parliamentarians sit, and the King's crown.
The former were not just bags, but attributes of power
in medieval England and the Great Steppe. The same
is true of the crown. Prior to the Turkis' arrival in
Europe, there were no such things. The word "crown"
is of Turkic origin: it is derived from qori, the
imperative of "to protect"; the object itself was one of
the ancient symbols of the East - a sign blessed by
God. A khan's crown would be placed on his head by
a high priest, and from that moment on, he would be
referred to as Czar. A different word was used in
Europe - "king", derived from the Turkic name of
Charles ("Karl") the Great; or, more exactly, from his
household name.

Coin of Henry I, King of England from 1100. As the

famous Encyclopaedia Britannica says, the English
monetary system began with the silver penny of
Offa…. Who in the world was this Offa? A foreign
ruler, one of the Anglo-Saxons - that is, a Turki. The
Encyclopaedia goes on to say that Offa (757-796)
ordered the same kind of money to be minted as the
Arab Caliph Mansur had. This is curious indeed. It is
further known that Caliph Mansur had borrowed the
monetary system of the Turkis. He himself said that
he couldn't come up with a better one. Such coins as
were minted under Offa spread across Turkic Europe,
and were called markus, as among the Arabs, or
simply marks. The Burgundians, having become
"Franks", later (in 1799) named their money this as
well. It is from these that the Deutschmark and the
franc came.

Pages 80-81
Hunting with a golden eagle in Kyrgyzstan.

Mythical animal. Decoration on a piece of headwear

from an Issyk burial mound. Gold. 5th-4th centuries
BC. Kazakhstan.

Dervish serves a prince the ball for a game of polo.

Ancient miniature from Arifi's manuscript "Ball and
Mallet". 16th century. M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin State
Public Library, St. Petersburg. Polo, played with a
mallet, was well-known in the Ancient Altai, and was
called chavgan. As an old Turkic saying goes, "A man
must know how to wield a mallet and shoot accurately
with a bow and arrow." Another saying teaches:
"When playing polo, don't bet your shirt - you might
lose it." The game was considered the ultimate sport.
Pages 82-83
Lustrous tiles from Kashan. Some of these have been
dated to 1267. Louvre, Paris.

Order of St. George. There were such orders in the

Great Steppe well before Attila. Archaeologists have
found them many times in burial mounds. This was
the sign of Tengri. It was from this that the word
"order" was derived: in Turkic, it meant "handed
down from above". A fair question to ask is: Just how
nondescript could Turkic culture have been if even the
Pope's highest award came from the Turkis?

Woman by a tree. Glazed tile. 12th-13th centuries.

Museum of Islamic Art, Cairo.

Pages 84-85
Mausoleum at the Mameluk cemetery near Cairo.
15th-16th centuries. Turkic architecture acquired a
new face in the East, too. There were the same domes
and the same octagons, but the details were already
different from those in Europe and in the Great
Steppe. The symbolism was also different.

Kalyan minaret in Bukhara. 1127.

Page 87
Mohammed's ascension into Heaven. Miniature from
Jami's manuscript Yusuf and Zulaikha. 16th century.
Uzbekistan Academy of Sciences Institute of Oriental
Studies, Tashkent.

Shakh Mosque in Isfakhan. Interior view. 17th

century.

Pages 88-89
Map of the Maverannakhr ("that which lies beyond
the river", that is, beyond the Amu-Darya) area.
Compiled in the 10th century by the geographer Ibn
Khaukal. The Turkis had begun to study geography
while still in the Altai; there are rock paintings there
that contain geographical information. Also well-
known are the star charts of the Altai's ancient
inhabitants. Unfortunately, they remain almost
completely unstudied. No one so far has made the
effort.
Mausoleum of the Sultan Tekesh, founder of the
Khorezmshakh Dynasty, in Kunya-Urench. 13th
century.

In a boat on the Persian Gulf. Miniature from Buzurg

ibn Shakhriyar's manuscript Wonders of India. 10th
century.

Pages 90 and 93
Prayer hall of the Sidi-Okba Mosque in Kayruan. 9th
century.

Chart showing the changes in handwritten Arabic

script. An inscription from 328, found near Damascus,
is thought to be the oldest known in Arabic. It
resembles Arabic script, but is in fact not. It is clearly
Turkic cursive. Another old inscription dates back to
512, and it too is not Arabic script. Only in the 8th
century did the Arabic way of writing, now familiar to
millions, take shape. It was then that people began
writing in Arabic.

Scribe. Detail of a miniature from the manuscript

"Messages of the Brothers of Purity". 1287.
Sulemanye Library, Istanbul.

Pages 94-95
The Prophet kneeling. Wood. 1520. Collection of
West European Sculpture, Berlin. No one now
remembers that inhabitants of Spain, southern France,
and parts of Italy practised Islam in the Dark and
Middle Ages; they called themselves allies and co-
religionists of the Catholics. This is how European
Moslems saw the Prophet Mohammed - in Turkic
dress.

Statue of King Gagik Bagratuni from Ani. 11th

century. Armenia. During the Dark and Middle Ages,
Turkic clothing was fashionable not only in European
countries, but in the Near East as well. Even in
Armenia, kings wore the turban and the caftan in the
Turkic manner.

Medieval tower of Baku.

Portrait of a young woman. 1420. National Gallery,
Washington. Once again, the turban can be seen.

Pages 96-97
Church of John the Baptist in the village of Dyakovo,
near Moscow. 16th century. Once again, the octagon -
a Turkic architectural tradition. No further words are
needed. This is real History, without any falsification.

Folding stand for holding a Koran. Carved walnut.

13th century. Museum of Islamic Nations' Art, Berlin.
No words are needed here, either; they would only be
superfluous. Secret writing from the Ancient Altai can
be seen in the ornamentation. These designs, like the
frame on a picture, are part of its national culture.
Nothing here is by chance.

Pages 98-99
Holiday procession. Miniature from al-Hariri's
manuscript "Maqamat" (published in English as "The
Assemblies of al-Hariri"). 1237. National Library,
Paris.

Tatar banner with cross and crescent (military trophy).

17th century. Military Museum, Stockholm. This is
perhaps the rarest trophy in the world - a true relic.
This is the banner under which the Great Steppe
fought. It was just such a banner that Attila brought to
Europe, one emblazoned with the ancient Turkic
symbols. The symbols were then separated, just as the
Turkic nation was itself torn into two. The Christians
took one half for themselves, the Moslems the other
half. The cross and the crescent became the symbols
of two different religions.

Pages 100-101
Frieze from the facade of Mshatta Castle. Fragment.
Carved stone. 743. Museum of Islamic Nations' Art,
Berlin.

Court scene from the Seljuk period. Fragment. Plaster

casting. 12th century. Museum of Art, Philadelphia.
The Turkis prized science, literature, and art. The
khans, for example, always had coins and other items
of gold ready to throw by the handful at the feet of a
poet. The Sultan Melikshakh, from the Seljuk
Dynasty, left other glories behind. He brought
together famous astronomers (one of whom was the
astronomer and poet Omar Khayyam), and on March
15, 1079, declared the beginning of a new era. He
introduced a new calendar, one which corrected the
mistakes in reckoning time, both in the past and in the
future. It was the most accurate calendar in the world.
It would be another 500 years before such a calendar
would appear in Europe.

The al-Malwiyah Minaret of the al-Mutawakkil

Mosque in Samarra. 9th century. Samarra - is this not
a familiar name? It is a city, not far from Baghdad,
which was raised in the 9th century in honour of the
holy mountain of Uch-Sumer in the Altai. It is a holy
city. The mosque of the Caliph al-Mutawakkil has
become a monument there; with it began a new style
in the construction of mosques. "New", because it was
a blend of Turkic and local (that is, ancient
Mesopotamian) traditions.

Pages 102-103
Graphic reconstruction of the temple in the village of
Lekit. 5th to 6th centuries. Azerbaijan.

Dome of the Rock (Qubbat as-Sakhrah) in Jerusalem.

7th century. Restored and partially rebuilt in the 12th
and 17th centuries.

Mosque of the Sultan Hasan in Cairo. Courtyard.

1363.

Pages 104-105
Medieval tower in Baku.

Drunken revel of the Sultan Mohammed. Drawing

from the manuscript "Diwan", a collection of short
odes by Hafiz. 16th century. Cartier Collection, Paris.
Like all the world's people, the Moslems love
holidays. In the Dark and Middle Ages, they
celebrated practically all the Christian holidays, since
they were the common holidays of those who
worshipped Tengri. During the Turkic Easter holiday
(Navruz-bairam), the Moslems and Christians of
Baghdad walked together to the Samaluk Monastery
and began celebrating. They would carry on, as a
participant in the event, Shabushti, wrote, "until the
walls started to dance around us." A veritable river of
sharab al-kurban wine flowed during the holy
communion.

Pages 106-107
Koutoubia Mosque in Marrakech (also spelled
Marrakesh). Built in the 12th century.

Sultan Mahmoud of Gazni crossing the Ganges. A

detail of a drawing. 16th century. Sultan Mahmoud
has been called a man with an unusually sharp mind.
Thus, on the bank of the Amu-Darya, he ordered boats
to be extended across the river and fastened together
with chains. The result was a pontoon bridge, which
the Sultan crossed with his army. Their subsequent
attack was swift and unexpected; it decided the
outcome of the war. "No one here had ever seen such
bridges before," noted the chroniclers.

Vessel of rock crystal. 10th-11th centuries. Victoria

and Albert Museum, London. The times have
changed, but scenes from the Altai remain the same.
Even after they began calling themselves a different
people, the proud Turkis preserved their past and
handed down memories of it in their manufactures.
Their jewellery, decorations, even their buildings,
were the sighing of a dormant memory.

Cooking-pot. Found in Azerbaijan. 12th-13th

centuries. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Page 109
Phases of the Moon. Drawing from al-Biruni's work
on astronomy. Al-Biruni was not just a great
astronomer, but an expert on different nations as well.
In his tract "On the Stations of the Moon", he wrote:
"The Arabs are an illiterate people; they cannot write
or count. They accept only that which they see with
their own eyes, since they know no other way of
study." The great Turki's mathematical calculations
were incomprehensible to them. This observation of
his referred to the inhabitants of Arabia, who - five
centuries after the adoption of Islam - remained as
uneducated as before.
Lute player. Relief from Asia Minor. Marble. c. 1230.
Museum of Islamic Nations' Art, Berlin. It is thought
that Western Europe learned about the lute from the
Arabs, since the name is derived from the Arabic al-
ud, or "wood". This, however, is incorrect, since the
lute has always been known in Eastern Europe, where
it was called a kobza, and one who played it was a
kobzar. It was an ancient Turkic instrument; the word
meant "plays on a komuz". The so-called Arabic
expression is actually Turkic: al ot - "take it and sing
('let sound come forth')".

Pages 110-111
Representation of the constellation Ophiuchus, the
Serpent-holder. Drawing from the star catalogue of
Abdarrakhman as-Sufi. 10th century.

Socrates with his pupils. Detail of a miniature from al-

Mubashshir's manuscript Select Wise Sayings and
Gems of Oratory. 13th century. Topkapi Palace
Museum, Istanbul. This miniature tells a great deal. In
medieval Europe, the great scholars of the Ancient
World - Socrates, Aristotle, Herodotus, and others -
were forbidden by the Church. Their works were
completely unknown. Only the Turkis kept copies of
these classics of human thought, and were able to
delight in them.

Miniature from Dioscorides's manuscript

"Pharmacology" in Arabic. 1224. Museum of Western
and Eastern Art, Kiev. Among the Turkis, the pursuit
of chemistry was anything but frivolous: they were
seeking the Elixir of Life, which would free them
from sickness and old age. They of course found no
such elixir; on the other hand, they accumulated a
great deal of knowledge about the chemical elements.
They called this knowledge "chemistry", from the
Ancient Turkic kimja, or "elixir".

Page 112
Part of a destroyed Coptic church. Egypt.

Pages 114-115
Zebu-shaped water vessel, the so-called Shirvan water
vessel. Bronze. 1206. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.
Fragment of a mosaic from the Church of St. Michael
Africisco, near Ravenna. Glass, smalt, natural
pebbles. 544. Early Christian and Byzantine
Collection, Berlin. Just as it should, this panorama of
heavenly life crowns the vault of the church. On his
throne, Almighty Tengri bestows his blessing on the
Catholic priest. It is possible that this blessing
contains the origin of the Catholic idea - the idea of a
union between East and West. Or, perhaps something
else as well: the artist called this work Tengri or
Khodai; he could scarcely have called it anything else.
Was it not from this that the universally recognized
Gott or God was derived? Though a bit distorted, this
is how many Europeans now pronounce the name of
the Almighty. It comes from Khodai.

Detail from the gates of the Kunia-Ark Palace in

Khiva. 17th century.

Page 116
Iskandar visits a hermit. Detail of a miniature from the
Nizami manuscript "Khamseh" ("The Quintuplet").
1543. Russian Academy of Sciences' Institute of
Oriental Studies Manuscript Collection, St.
Petersburg.

St. George. Detail of a mural in Kintsvisi Cathedral.

13th century. Georgia. Can no one really say exactly
who is depicted here? In those times, the Turkis called
him Jor, or Jargan. It is from this that the name
Georgia is derived; that is, "the Land of St. George".
Christians now call him St. George; the Moslems,
Khyzr. The word Khyzr came from Khazar, the name
of the Caspian Sea, on the shores of which (in
Derbent) the hero performed his great deed and
acquired immortality.

Pages 118-119
The Turkic karaka-ship. An old drawing.

Unloading a ship. Detail of a miniature from the

manuscript "Kalila and Dimna". c. 1350. The Oguz,
once they came to power in the Caliphate, did a great
deal to elevate the Moslem world. They translated
priceless works of Turkic science and literature into
Arabic. The parable "Kalila and Dimna" was just one
of many hundreds.

Detail of the plate "Silen and Menada". Gilded silver.

7th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 120-121
Greek fire. Detail of a miniature. 14th century.

Iconoclast. Fragment of a miniature from the Khludov

Psalter. 9th century. Historical Museum, Moscow.
Iconoclasm was a heinous crime - an act of
vandalism. It was committed by the Greek Church,
when it became the first such institution in the Dark
Ages to begin obliterating the image of the God of
Heaven. From this time on, people started to forget
the name and face of Tengri; it was all purely
political.

Pages 122-123
Belvedere Courtyard in the Vatican. Overall view.
Begun in 1505.

Arnolfo di Cambio. Fragment of the Cardinal

Guillaume de Braye's tomb in the Church of San
Domenico at Orvieto. 1282.

Pages 124-125
Members of a monastic order. Miniature from a
French book. 14th century. National Library, Paris.
On the chest of each monk is an order - the Turkic
mark of distinction which became a part of European
culture.

St. Etienne as a deacon. Silver. 12th century.

Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 126-127
Tomb of Archbishop Friedrich von Wettin.
Magdeburg Cathedral. Bronze. 1160.

Coats of Arms of Popes Pius II, Innocent III, Urban

IV, Clement IV, Nicholas III, George XIII, Honorius
III, Nicholas IV, John XXII, John XXI. On Pius II's
coat of arms is an equilateral cross, charged with five
crescents. On Nicholas IV's are three fleurs-de-lis (the
Altai lotus) and two six-pointed mullets, or stars. On
Gregory XIII's is the dragon, a charge which needs no
explanation. Each pope had his own sign of the East.

The Bogomil Sarcophagus. 10th century. Balkans.

Pages 128-129
Pillaging. Miniature from "A French Chronicle". 15th
century. National Library, Paris.

Raphael. Mass in Bolsena. Detail from the fresco

"Stanza d'Eliodoro". 1511. Vatican Palace, Rome.

Pages 130-131
Middleton Cross. Stonecarving. 10th century.
Yorkshire, England.

Deer. Head of a staff from a burial mound in Sutton

Hoo, estate near Woodbridge, Suffolk. 10th century.
England.

Castle of Monsegur in the Pyrenees - the last refuge of

the Cathari in 1244.

Viking ship. Useberg. c. 800.

Pages 132-133
Scenes from the life of Sigurd. Woodcarving. 12th
century.

Scenes from the life of Sigurd. Runestone. 11th

century.

Construction site. Miniature from Barberini's Psalter.

11th century. Vatican, Rome.

Pages 134-135
Baleen plate, topped with two horses' heads. Found in
Norway. 9th century. British Museum, London.

Caernarvon Castle. Construction begun in 1283 by

Edward I, uniter of Wales and England.

Page 136
Map with a route to America (Vinland) and runic
inscriptions. c. 16th century. This is not the actual
map, but a copy. Found by chance at the archbishop's
estate in Esztergom, on the banks of the Danube, it
was in the private collection of Guzsa Sepesi, the
director of the city's museum. The original map
vanished mysteriously in the archives of the Vatican.

Horseman. Fragment of a relief in Hornhausen. Stone.

c. 700. Halle Museum.

Pages 138-139
Letter "P" from a medieval manuscript. 12th century.
Animals devouring one another was a favourite motif
of the Altai. This has long been a point of dispute for
European archaeologists. It is curious indeed that this
motif is encountered only where the descendants of
the Kipchaks lived.

Erhart Reyvich. View of Venice. Illustration for

"Breidenbach's Journey". 1486.

Relief with heraldic figures from Venice. Marble.

11th-12th centuries. State Museum, Berlin. These too
are symbols of the distant Altai.

Page 140
Pilgrims. Detail from a portal in Autun Cathedral,
Burgundy. Stone. 12th century. In the Middle Ages,
pilgrims from different countries understood one
another quite well: they essentially spoke one
language. This was sometimes called "Barbaric" or
"Vulgate"; more often, it was known as "the Divine
Tongue". This was Turkic speech. It was introduced
into European culture at the end of the 4th century by
Hieronymus, a Kipchak - one of the first to settle in
the Western Roman Empire. It was he who created the
script that was to take the place of runes. Today, this
script is known as the Glagolitic alphabet.
Hieronymus translated the Holy Book of the
Christians - the Bible - into the "national language".

Grieving peasant woman. Detail from Cologne

Cathedral. Stone. c. 1322.

Pages 142-143
Knights board ship to embark on the Crusade.
Miniature from the manuscript "Statute of the Naples
Order of the Holy Ghost". 14th century.
Crusader Friedrich Barbarossa. Miniature from the
manuscript "A History of Jerusalem". 13th century. A
legendary figure of the Middle Ages - and not, of
course, because he, like Genghis Khan, was called
Redbeard. This man was virtually the only one who
refused to be a toady to the Pope. It is said he boldly
told the Pope that "it was not you who gave me power
over the nation, but Tengri".

Pages 144-145
Taking of Antioch. The First Crusade. Miniature from
a medieval manuscript.

Homecoming of a crusader. Fragment from a tomb

memorial in Nancy. This was a memorial to Count
Hugo of Vaudemont, a participant in the Second
Crusade. Next to him is his wife, a daughter of the
Duke of Lorraine. Their faces are both expressive and
recognisable: they are true Kipchaks. Apparently, not
all the Kipchaks' descendants forgot the ancient law of
their ancestors: "Take only one of your own for a
wife." Was this not the reason for one of the women
who took part in the Crusades to become the wife of a
sultan and the mother of the famous Caliph Imad ad-
Din Zangi (Zangi also spelled Zengi), who, in the 12th
century, killed crusaders a number of times?

Knight. Detail from Cologne Cathedral. Stone. c.

1322.

Pages 146-147
The ceremonial of dubbing. Miniature from the
Oxford Codex.

Battle between a knight and a dragon. Water vessel.

Bronze. 13th century. Hermitage, St. Petersburg.

Pages 148-149
Crusaders battling Moslems. Stained-glass window
from the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Knight. Tomb in Gloucester Cathedral. 12th century.

Pages 150-151
Charles the Great. From a mozaic portait. 9th century.
Portrait of a Burgundian. Steel helmet. 16th century.
British Museum, London.

Knights. Lithograph. 19th century.

Pages 152-153
St. George and the Dragon. Detail of a fresco from a
church in Staraya Ladoga. This is a very rare
monument of the Middle Ages: it shows the changes
to the biography of St. George. It is as though two
motifs have been blended into one on the icon: the old
and the new. The priest has become a warrior; he is on
horseback, but, as before, he is not killing the dragon.
That which is new always takes some time to crowd
the old out of people's memory.

Weapons of a knight. Detail of the Bayeux Tapestry.

11th century. Bayeux Cathedral.

Knight. Detail of the Bayeux Tapestry. 11th century.

Bayeux Cathedral.

Pages 154-155
The dombra, queen of musical instruments, in a
Kazakh yurt.

Tournament. Miniature from "Froissart's Chronicles".

15th century. France.

Pages 156-157
Knights' tournament. From Duke Wilhelm IV's "A
Book of Tournaments". 16th century. State Library,
Munich.

Desiderio da Settignaano. Portrait of a princess from

Urbino. Limestone. 15th century. Collection of West
European Sculpture, Berlin.

Pages 158-159
"Electing the Emperor". Drawing from the manuscript
"The Codex of Baldwin of Trier". Provincial
Archives, Koblenz. A coronation would seem to be a
common scene in art. Before the arrival of the Turkis,
however, the monarchs of Europe did not wear
crowns. Diadems were worn on the heads of the
Roman emperors (see the bust of Julian on p. 25); this
was something altogether different.

Storming the Fortress of Love. Ivory carving. 1400.

State Museum, Berlin.

Benedetto Antelami. Statue of a musician. From the

baptistery in Parma, Lombardy. Detail. 12th century.

Page 160
Crusaders battling Egyptian forces. From a stained-
glass window at the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Iskodar mikhrab - the prayer niche in the wall of a

mosque. Woodcarving. 10th-11th centuries.
Uzbekistan. Incontrovertible evidence: the
ornamentation exactly follows Altai patterns that are
now common in both Europe and the East (see p. 71).

Pages 162-163
Taking of Antioch by the Crusaders. Stained-glass
window in the Abbey of St. Denis. 12th century.

Detail of an arch. From a church in Tsunda. Stone.

12th-13th centuries. Georgia.

Portrait of Queen Tamara. Detail from a cave painting

at the Monastery of Vardziya. 1184-1186.

Pages 164-165
Fortress in Khertvisi. 10th-14th centuries. Georgia.

Grigory Gagarin. Bath of the 17th century in

Shemakha. Drawing.

Horses in armour. Detail from a piece of jewellery.

Gold. 4th century, BC. S. Janshia Georgian Museum,
Tbilisi.

Pages 166-167
Monarch at a hunt. Detail from an engraved cup from
Mosul. Bronze. c. 1300. Museum of Islamic Nations'
Art, Berlin.

Genghis Khan. Drawing from the Chinese manuscript

"A History of the First Four Khans from the Clan of
Genghis". This drawing is not even worthy of serious
discussion. It is the product of a Chinese artist's
imagination, and the Chinese, as is well-known, draw
all people the same way - they make everyone look
Chinese! They don't know how to draw differently;
this is what makes their national art so charming.
Without realising it, every nation depicts the world the
way they see it.

Pages 168-169
Travellers in the mountains. Landscape in the Li
Chao-tao style. Fragment of a scroll. Paint on paper.
7th-8th centuries. At one time in the Gugong Museum
Collection, Beijing.

Mounted Mongol archer of the Ming Dynasty.

Drawing in coloured India ink. Victoria and Albert
Museum, London.

Page 170
Statuette of a woman. Figure from a Chinese tomb.
Terracotta. 7th-10th centuries. British Museum,
London.

Page 173
Sample of a Uighur letter. Fragment from the
manuscript "A Biography of Hsuan-tsang". 11th
century. Manuscript Collection, Russian Academy of
Sciences' Institute of Oriental Studies, St. Petersburg.

Portrait of an official. 10th-13th centuries. Hermitage,

St. Petersburg.

Pages 174-175
Siege of a Chinese fortress by the warriors of Genghis
Khan. Detail of a miniature.

The taking of Samarkand by the warriors of Genghis

Khan. Miniature from a Chagatai manuscript. 16th
century.

Pages 176-177
Pisanello (?). "Portrait of Sigismund of Luxembourg".
Parchment on wood, tempera. 1430. Art History
Museum, Vienna. The art of the Middle Ages is up to
this time a mystery, one that is distinguished by an
expressive artistic language. Scholars do not know
what kind of style this is - a style that was followed all
over Europe. Where did it come from? It has been
dubbed International Gothic. It is said that it had no
native land, and belonged to no one in particular. Is
this really true? Is it by accident that identical art,
sometimes separated by great distances, has been
found in Turkic lands - Flanders, Lombardy,
Burgundy, Tuscany, Catalonia, England, the banks of
the Rhine, and the lands of present-day Austria,
Hungary, Germany, Bohemia and Moravia? This is
not even a complete geographical listing. Where were
the fountainheads of such especially soft and elegant
painting? In the Altai, of course, among the Turkis.

Funerals of Genghis Khan. Detail of a miniature from

a medieval Indian manuscript.

Pages 178-179
Ruins of the ancient city of Bulgar. 10th-14th
centuries. Tatarstan.

Pages 180-181
St. Sophia Cathedral in Kiev. Detail. 11th century.
The cathedral's architecture does not merely remind
one of the exteriors of the temples of ancient Bulgar;
it duplicates them exactly. They were obviously
created by artisans from one school of building - the
school of the Great Steppe.

Market in Novgorod. Detail of a miniature. The Book

of Laptev.
Vladimir I, Grand Prince of Kiev with his army.
Detail.

Pages 182-183
Black Palace in the ancient city of Bulgar. 10th-14th
centuries. Tatarstan.

Ancient Turkic temple in Bulgar. 10th-14th centuries.

Tatarstan.

Pages 184-185
People of Galitsko-Volynskaya Rus fleeing to the
Mongols. Miniature from a Hungarian chronicle.
1488. Two centuries after these events, a new
"history" of Rus would start to be written: legends
would appear about the horrors of tribute; then about
the "Tatar-Mongol yoke".

Batu. Drawing from the Chinese manuscript "A

History of the First Four Khans from the Clan of
Genghis".

The Russian Prince Fyodor Rostislavovich arrives at

the Horde for his warrant to collect tribute from Rus.
Detail of the hagiographical icon. 15th century.
Museum Collection, Yaroslavl.

Page 187
Our Lady of Vladimir. Detail of the icon . Tretyakov
Gallery, Moscow.

Pages 188-189
Fragment from the sculptured decoration of the
Cathedral of St. Dmitry. Vladimir. 1194. This
cathedral is one of the oldest in Russia. It is a subject
of dispute among architects. In their opinion, the
building duplicates the churches of Dark Ages
Lombardy, which were identical to temples built by
Turkic artisans in both the Transcaucasus and Europe.
The resemblance is beyond question. They do not,
however, recognise Turkic architecture in Russia.
They continue to argue without knowing that in the
19th century, the Frenchman Viollet-le-Duc
"travelled" all the way to the Altai in his research, and
told the world about Turkic temple architecture.
Another scholar, the Austrian Jozef Strzygowski,
wrote a unique work on the history of iconography,
which also, as it turns out, began in the Altai.

Pages 190-191
"Massacre on the Ice in 1242." Detail of a miniature
from "An Illuminated Chronicle of the Codex". 16th
century.

Teutonic Knights pursue the Swedes. Medieval

miniature.

Page 192
Gothic arch of an interior staircase for horsemen,
leading into the Vladislav Hall. Detail. Sobeslav
Palace, Prague.

Battle between Polish and Mongolian warriors in

1241. From a Polish mural painting. 15th century.
National Museum, Warsaw.

Pages 194-195
Horrors of the Inquisition. Drawing from Samuel
Clark's book "A Martyrology".

Lange Castle. France.

St. Dominic. Museum at Aveiro.

Pages 196-197
Street in Vienna.

Bonfire of the Inquisition. Miniature from a medieval

manuscript.

Pages 198-199
Burning heretics in Paris. Miniature. 13th century.

Pages 200-201
University of Salamanca. Facade. 1515. Spain.

Detail of the "Christ the Pantocrator" icon. 1363.

Pages 202-203
Fortress tower in Beijing. It has been rebuilt many
times. 15th-17th centuries.

Head of a man. Detail of a funeral vessel found near

Samarkand, Uzbekistan. c. 7th century. The bones of
nobles were kept in such vessels (shrines). It is
possible that the remains of some of Genghis Khan's
sons, and even Genghis himself, are preserved in such
shrines. This is not likely; however, the possibility
cannot be excluded, since no one has ever found the
grave of Genghis Khan. The Turkic artisans hid their
burial places very well.

Pages 204-205
Hans Baldung. "Wild Horses." 1534.

Page 206
Hans Baldung. "The Enchanted Groom." 1544.

Page 215
Hunting with hawks. Detail of a French casket. Bone.
14th century. Metropolitan Museum, New York.
Cover:
Crusader in a hauberk. Miniature from a book. 13th
century. British Museum, London.

The Bird of the World Above - a sign of unity for the

Turkis. Felt. 5th century BC. The Altai.

Back fly-leaf:
Mahmoud Pakhlavan's Complex in Khiva. Majolica.
14th century.

Horsemen:
like the designs of the Altai,
they have become a symbol
of medieval Europe as well.

Использование материалов
сайта без согласования c
автором запрещается. При Создание сайта 2004
использовании материалов Арт-Конструктор
сайта ссылка на сайт
обязательна.