The term "Franks" still causes debate among historians and philologists. The word Franci originally had a socio-political connotation.
First, a few words formed on the “Frank basis”:
Francotirador (French franc-tireur) is a sniper, and literally “free/free? shooter"
(tirador; verb tirar - throw, throw, poke). The term appeared in the Castilian dialect of Spanish since the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. The term itself is probably older, for example it was used in the war between Denmark and Sweden 1563 -1570, as friskytte / friskytt or snaphane / snaphan. Were the Francotirador snipers initially civilians or free-roamers (wherever they were ordered to go and shoot)? Freelancers (English freelancer) - (free worker-spearman) lanza -spear (verb lanzar-lancer).
1. Francotiradors from the Franco-Prussian War
2. Franco-musketeer in a smart rooster costume
Portuguese frango - cockerel, the word is also used in the following meaning
teenage boy
fried rooster or chicken (the dandy jumped)
3. Friskytte freeskier sniper badge is signed “Danish Rifle Council.” For sniper shooting" or "management of Danish shooting unions (clubs, associations)"
Porto Franco - Porto Franco (Italian: porto franco - free port) - a port (or a certain part of it, the Port-Frankivsk zone), enjoying the right of duty-free import and export of goods.
Francmasón - (Freemasonry, French Franc-maçonnerie, English Freemasonry)
- a movement that appeared in 1717 in the form of a secret society (Freemasonry, French Franc-maçonnerie, English Freemasonry).
Mason or free mason?
Did involuntary masons still exist, although more precisely Are they mixers of mass-(concrete?) or organizers of a free-free mass-mass?.
Mason mason - "stoneworker" from Old French masson, maçon Old North French machun, from PIE root *mag- crush
Caricature How to Become a Mason How To Make A Mason English Anti Masonic Caricature From 1800 From The Book The Freemason
Ritual of entry into a Masonic lodge freemasonry, rituals, initiation of a apprentice in a lodge, copper engraving, 18th century, freemasons, ceremony
Variants of the etymology of the word FRANK:
I. La palabra franco (Frank o Francus) significa "libre" en la lengua de los francos, ya que los francos no estaban dominados por el Imperio romano ni por ningún otro pueblo. The word Frank or Francus means "free" in the Frankish language, because The Franks in the Roman Empire did not obey anyone.
II. Some derive the root of the word “franc” from the words “wandering”, “wandering”, others from “brave”, “brave”, “undaunted”, others interpret it as “proud”, “noble”, others as “wild”, "ferocious".
III. The word "franc" comes from Lat. Franc "franc", from Frankish. *Frank, guess. from German *frankon "spear".
framea ae f.
spear, pike (among the ancient Germans)
double-edged sword
Latin word framea from Germanic Framjō- e., verb * framje/a- “vorwärtsbringen-forward to take, vollführen to execute”")
Cognate derivatives frem[m]en, as. fremmian, ae. framian, fremman, afries. frem[m]a, fremja
Spears framea took f frame = framje,
, that is, they got Freiheit freedom with money and so became Franks - Freeman freeman? From whom did the Franks liberate themselves and where does the socio-political connotation come from?
Phrygian caps on a spear
IV Since the root Frank is of unknown origin, it may have been derived from Frei-rancken (free ranks)
... Inspired by the word Frei - Varangian and .... Frankenstein
Frei-rancken-Frankien+shtiein (free ranks or Franks and Einsteins crossed)
Einstein (German: Einstein) is a surname, pronounced in German as Einstein and literally translated means “first stone” .... Is Einstein a mason?
Stone-stein-stone
From Middle English stan, ston, from Old English stān, from Proto-Germanic *stainaz (compare Dutch steen, German Stein, Danish Swedish sten, Norwegian stein), from Proto-Indo-European *st(y)oy- compare Latin stiria (“ice icicle and English tear”), Russian wall, Ancient Greek στῖον (stîon, “stone”), στέαρ (stéar, “hard fat stearine”), Persian ستون (sotun, “column”), Sanskrit ( styāyate, “it hardens, solidifies”).
Walls were built from frozen coma stone... frankon “spear” and shTirs - spear, and given that this is also a phallic symbol, Sanskrit (styāyate) to stand - to freeze - to harden is also in the theme. (And among the English, the other side of the fall process is fall, decline)
What does the word Frank mean? How does it all fit together in a sniper, a free trade zone, Frankenstein Freemasons... from Frankfurt.
Cities of Frankfurt am Main and Frankfurt am Oder
Their coats of arms:
Frankfurt comes from the word Franconofurd- Frankfort, a Germanic tribe of Franks
? The German word Furt refers to a shallow place on a river suitable for fording.
Furt is a ford, and in Romanian it is theft (thief, English froud)... fort-port-crossing. Probably the Franks did not pay taxes (tribute-rent) while fording the rivers - Porto Franco - Free.
The fjord is a narrow, winding bay that juts deep into the mainland with rocky steep banks. fjord, further from other Scand. fjǫrðr, further from Proto-Indo-European. *prtus "passage". How can a port be built on a bay with rocky, steep shores? Are the gates good or are they pirate forts and ports?
The name Frankfurt stands for “Franconian fortress”: frank + furt (“from German - fortress”). Frankfurt played an important role in the Holy Roman Empire. Was Germany assembled from Franconia and Prussia?
The “freedom” of the Franks is associated with freedom, friendship and Friday Freya or Frau.
Married Frau
- domo rights
itelnitsa
From Middle High German vrouwe, vrowe, from the Old High German frouwa, from Proto-Germanic *frawjǭ, a feminine form of *frawjô (“lord”) (Old English frēa, frēo), from Proto-Indo-European *prōw- (“master, judge”). Cognate with Old Saxon frūa (Middle Low German vrouwe, Modern Low German frug), Old Norse freyja. The Indo-European root is also the source of Proto-Slavic *pravъ (whence Old Church Slavonic right (pravŭ), Russian right (pravyj, “right”)).
A free Freya (in myths she is a widow) free so they came to her
.
Old English freo "free, exempt from, from Proto-Germanic *frija- “beloved, free not in slavery" as well as Old Frisian fri, Old Saxon vri, Old High German vri, German frei, Dutch vrij, Gothic freis "free "), from PIE *priy-a- "dear, beloved," from root *pri- "to love - accept" Cognates Slavic prijati- welcome, welcome, pleasant-accept, friend, friend. That's all “freedom”
And the Franks came not from some mythical Franks from Franconia who lived more than 2000 years ago, but from francisia-francisia-franchise and freight and tranche, concluded on the basis of friendly relations.
Franchising franchise (French franchise - French franchise “benefits, exclusive freedom”, or tax exemption). Previously, franchisia were lands with the privilege of immunity that belonged to foreign ambassadors and dignitaries.
Paid part of the freight and receive franchising.
Freight (German Fracht, English freight) - in law: payment stipulated by contract or law for the transportation of goods.
The word appeared in Russian at the end of the 17th century. Borrowed into German as a commercial concept. Initially it was used in three meanings: transportation of goods by water, the goods themselves transported, payment for this transportation. Then the range of meanings expanded significantly. The basis of the expansion is the expansion of the content of the concept beyond the limits of exclusively water transportation.
This expansion corresponds, in our opinion, to the etymology of the concept. Its origins have only an indirect and historically transitory connection with the “water” element.
The German word is fracht, the Dutch word is vracht frachten load, heaviness, burden. From Proto-Germanic *fra- + *aihtiz is related to English English freight and fraught. fra- pro-, pre-; and aihtiz – to grab, grab (to have)
Franchising is a commercial concession - a type of relationship between market entities when one party (franchisor) transfers to the other party (franchisee) for a fee (royalty) the right to a certain type of business, using a developed business model for its conduct. This is a developed form of licensing in which one party (the franchisor) grants the other party (the franchisee) a paid right to act on its own behalf, using the franchisor’s trademarks and/or brands.
Fracht vracht frachten - the load, heaviness and burden of the franchise-franchise is associated with the faction of the fraktur and the division of the burden-share-rent.
Fraction from lat. frāctio “breaking, breaking”, further from frangere “to break, break, crush”, from Proto-Indo-European. *bhreg- “to break.”
frango frēgī, frāctum, ere
break, break, crush; crush; dissect; hack; break through, pierce; grind, pound, crush
to tear apart, to tear apart; soften disrupt
to break, to depress, to dishearten, to deprive of vigor (courage)
tame, bridle, pacify, suppress, break resistance
debilitate, debilitate, exhaust
refute
deplete, diminish, weaken
(pac) touch, soften, pity
In the process of doing business, complete fricasso fracasso (refusal of payments) and fraud (deception, fraud) occur, the ship goes to sea and sinks náufrago ; a chiropractor and amulets will no longer help.
These are the kind of franks, dandies, pranks, squabbles
Frant comes from Czech. franta (also frant) “cunning, jester, rogue, fool”; in the 16th century: “clown, rogue”; from own Franta, reduce from František (cf. Old Czech Frantova práva “Plutish rank”, first edition - in Nuremberg, 1518). Russian dandy borrowing via Polish frant "rogue" jester, wandering comedian." Prank (from the English prank - prank, prank, prank; joke)
Initially, the Francotirador snipers fired everywhere, missing everything, until everything was smashed into rubbish.
Portuguese frango cock teen boy has a brittle voice
Freemasons - they broke something and kneaded it, maybe they sculpted the philosopher's stone (lat. lapis philosophorum)?...
A) Franks
The Franks are one of the last of the Germanic peoples to emerge, one of those whose origins are shrouded in the thickest veil. Nevertheless, it was the Franks who were destined to benefit most from the resettlement. It was their activities, in the early Middle Ages, that had a deep and lasting impact on the history of the West.
The very name of the Franks is first found in the marching song of the Roman army, which is cited in the “History of Augustus” - a very mediocre source - in connection with the events of 241, then, in a more confident manner, in stories about the great invasion of Gaul under Gallienus in 257 .; one band of Franks even reached Spain. Shortly thereafter, during the reign of Probus (276–282), a rather unusual story tells how a group of Franks, stranded on the Black Sea by unknown means, returned to their homeland via Gibraltar. Finally, around 286, Carausius was entrusted with the defense of the approaches to Pas-de-Calais from Saxon and Frankish pirates. Thus, the first Franks appear to our eyes as a people posing a danger both on land and at sea, partly living in the middle or lower reaches of the Rhine.
Where did they come from? Their name does not clarify much: it probably comes from a root meaning “brave, brave” (cf. Old Scand. frekkr). Their language - which forms the basis of the Germanic dialects of Northwestern Europe, as well as Dutch - is also not very eloquent. Since the 17th century, even in the absence of any text capable of confirming this, most historians have accepted that the Franks arose as a result of the regrouping of various peoples whose presence in the lower Rhine was recorded in the previous period. Among the possible components of this synthesis, we should mention the Hamavii, Bructeri, Ampsivarii, Hattuarii, Chatti, undoubtedly the Sicambri, with a lesser probability the Tencteri, Usipi and Tubantes and, in extreme cases, individual Batavians.
These ancestors of the Franks were small peoples with an uncertain future; for the most part they are not mentioned in any way between the end of the 1st century. n. e. and the middle or even the end of the 3rd, and sometimes the 4th century. Unlike the great peoples that subsequently disappeared (the Quads, the Marcomanni, etc.), they did not exhaust themselves by constantly storming the limes; they were, in a way, conserving their strength. For a long time, most of them lived in the lands immediately adjacent to Roman territory, near trading centers such as Cologne or Xanten; and it is unlikely that they were not deeply influenced by the Romans. They should be singled out from among all the Germans as the most ready to accept Roman civilization.
We do not know what factors led these peoples to unite in the 3rd century. Perhaps they were driven by the desire to more successfully resist the Romans and at the same time pressure from the depths of Germany itself, for example, the Alamanni. In any case, this merger remained rather superficial. Not to mention the Hamavs, Bructeri and Hessians, who kept to themselves until the end, the Franks had several subgroups that enjoyed significant autonomy.
The first and most important mention is of the Sa-lii, whom Julian first mentions in his speech to the Athenians, along with the Hamavians; their name then appears among the titles of the various auxiliaries in the "List of Offices." It can be assumed that they constituted the “strike force” of the Franks on the way to Belgium. But in the Merovingian era their name was used only as a legal term; they are not found in literary or diplomatic sources, but have their own legislation, the "Salic Truth", which originally applied to all Franks living between the "Coal Forest" and the Loire (that is, with the exception of the Rhine Franks, Hamavs and other small tribes).
The second group - the Rhine Franks - was less united and did not have the ancient designation. The name Ripuarii, used in modern historiography, is erroneous; however, the “Cosmographer of Ravenna,” a compiler working around 475–480, knew of the Francia Rinensis (Rhenish Francia), covering the banks of the Rhine from Mainz to Nimwegen, the Moselle valley from Tull to Koblenz, the valley of the lower Meuse, etc.
Before Clovis, these two unstable groups created political entities only for short periods. For this ancient era, historiography gives us enough royal names to prove that at that time it was not a question of a monarchy, but of the coexistence of several tribal kings. In 287–288 the first king known to us, Genobaudes, concluded a faedus with Rome; perhaps he was a boor. Sources of the 4th century seven other names are reported, completely unknown to the Merovingian historiographical tradition (if Gregory of Tours knew some, it was from a now lost book source belonging to Sulpicius Alexander). It seems clear that these tribal kings were not the ancestors of Clovis.
Then where to look for the ancestors of Clovis? It seems that between the 4th and 5th centuries. The Frankish confederation changed its structure, and in doing so the Salic leaders gained some advantage. Gregory of Tours already had very scant information about what happened; he almost at random names King Theodomer, of whom we know only one name. The Book of the History of the Franks, reproducing this passage in the 8th century, introduces Pharamond, brother of Marcomer, as the first king; the last name is associated with the events of 388, but we do not know where Pharamond came from.
The first Merovingian about whom at least something tangible is known is Chlogio; Gregory of Tours says that in the middle of the 5th century. he took Cambrai and reached the Somme. Contrary to later fabricated genealogies, it is not certain that he was the grandfather of Clovis; rather, his descendants were three kings mentioned at the end of the 5th century, Ragnahar, who ruled in Cambrai, and his brothers Richarius and Rignomer, who were Clovis' "cousins" of unknown degree.
As for King Merovei, this is more of a mythical eponym of the dynasty than a real character. In fact, for history, the founder of this family is Childeric, the father of Clovis, who appears to us in 457 as the leader of an allied corps fighting the Visigoths in the Loire region together with the master of the militum Aegidius.
Archeology provides little additional detail to this inaccurate portrait. She succeeds neither in identifying the available material with the various tribes whose unification gave birth to the Frankish people, nor in identifying typical Frankish strata in the first period after the crossing of the Rhine. Cemeteries, weapons and decorations acquired characteristic features only at the beginning of the Merovingian era, when a new civilization emerged on the territory of conquered Gaul.
The penetration of the Franks into the empire took place in two different ways. From the 4th century within the Roman world there is "subversion" due to the increase in the number of Frankish units in the army and Frankish leaders in command positions - a situation attested in the sources, but which did not have great consequences for the future of the Franks as a people. In addition, there was a slow settlement of lands in the almost abandoned borders of the empire, in areas about which our sources in any era can say negligibly little, and on a social level that was of no interest to ancient historiography. This almost unknown aspect is nevertheless of paramount importance, since its consequences still remain in force. Fortunately, in this case, auxiliary disciplines come to the rescue - linguistics, onomastics and archeology.
The presence of the Franks in the Gallic army dates back to the end of the 3rd century, possibly to the reign of Postumus; with the beginning of the tetrarchy it becomes massive. In their German campaigns, Maximian and Constantius Chlorus relied on the help of Frankish allies. Under Constantine, in 324, we meet the first high-ranking Frankish military commander named Bonitus. Around 370–390 the empire was ruled by a group of Frankish commanders; three Franks received consular title, Richomer (384), Bauto (385) and Merobaudes (377 and 383). Many of these chiefs appear to have been of noble birth; Of course, they were all very talented; even Ammianus Marcellinus, who hated barbarians, made an exception for some of them. Their devotion to Rome seemed sincere. Frank Silvanus, son of Bonite (let's note their Roman names), for a long time commanded the troops of Constantius fighting the Rhine Franks; in 355, having usurped the imperial crown (against his own wishes), he thereby continued to act within the typical Roman framework. Arbogast, nephew of the consul (384) Ri-homer, lived throughout his career under the shadow of Frankish patrons like Bauto, or himself favored other Franks like Charietto; but, having come to power in 392, he used it not to carry out the “transfer” of the empire into Frankish hands, but to crown one of the “last Romans,” the rhetorician Eugenius, a supporter of the typically Roman pagan reaction; in addition, he energetically defended the Rhine lines from the Franks. These people were by no means the forerunners of Clovis.
At a lower social level, Rome imported numerous Frankish captives to once again provide labor for the fields. This position appeared already faedus from 287–288. with Genobavd. Constantine concluded other similar treaties in Belgium. It is possible that some of these settlements contained Germanic-type cemeteries attributed to the laeti (cf. p. 147). They could prepare the formation of a new Romano-Germanic culture.
But the main process of resettlement of the Franks did not depend on Rome. The first stages appear to have been associated with the modification of Roman defenses after the disasters of 268–277. Below Xanten, the banks of the Rhine were abandoned by the Romans, and the linear limes were replaced by scattered castella (fortresses) protecting the Cologne-Tongre-Bavais-Boulogne route, some near the river and most inland. The fourth century left us no other Roman traces between the Rhine and this rocade, which probably does not indicate evacuation, but at least impoverishment and indifference to civilization.
The texts are short and deceptive. You can start with the story of Ammianus Marcellinus: in 358, Julian attacked the Salii, who dared to settle on Roman territory apud Toxandriam locum (near Toxandria), and then made peace with them in Tongre, agreeing to cede land to them. Where is it, Toxandria locus) Without a doubt, like Texandria of the 9th century, northeast of Anver. Thus, it appears that Dutch Brabant was settled by Salic Franks later, in the middle of the 4th century. Then let's move on to the Chronicle of St. Jerome, who mentions the defeat of the Saxons at "Deusone in regione Francorum" (Deusone in the region of the Franks), but this place name cannot be positively identified (most likely the place is in Geldern, north of the Rhine). Finally, in 388, Sulpicius Alexander (and after them Gregory of Tours) places the battle with the Franks who crossed the Rhine at Cologne at apud Carbonariam, and this place also cannot be determined. In this context, it can be assumed that the region of Francia (Francia) and the majority of the Franks were still east of the Rhine.
Then complete silence was established, which lasted until the 5th century, which apparently indicates a weakening of the Frankish onslaught. Undoubtedly, there was a largely peaceful settlement of territories that were not of particular interest to Rome. Thus, only one thing is clear: from 358, the Salii legally settled on this side of the Rhine, on what was once Roman soil, possessing legal status (federates, one must assume), which distinguished them from other barbarians unfriendly to the Empire. Other Frankish groups, such as the Hamavs and Bructeri, remained fragmented and hostile to Rome.
During the breakthrough of 406, there were no Franks among the attackers. Some Franks, while in the ranks of the Roman army, even defended the crossing of the Rhine from the barbarians. The Franks bear no responsibility for the enormous disaster that followed. The events of 406 had mainly indirect consequences for them, since they weakened power and defense in the north of Gaul. Nevertheless, some groups, certainly not having entered into a faedus with the Romans, could not long resist the desire to get their share of the spoils. It is known that before 411 they took Trier twice; in 428 the Franks occupied part of the Rhineland, from where Aetius expelled them; one text confusingly mentions further clashes in 432. Finally, around 440–450. Salvian briefly described the fate of the Rhine cities: Mainz destroyed and devastated, Cologne “full of enemies” (that is, definitely captured), Trier sacked four times (that is, two more times after 411; the final capture apparently did not occur before 475).
It is likely that in the middle of the 5th century. The Roman defensive system was restored: according to one panegyrist, in 446 the Rhine border was again in the hands of Rome - but not for long, since in 451 the Huns broke through the Roman lines, joined by the Huts. However, most of the Franks did not move, and the limes were completely abandoned. Roman power in the north of Gaul was reduced to one mobile army stationed in the Parisian basin, at the head of which in 456 or 457 a new master militum Aegidius was placed, and several more or less ghostly military districts: the ducat of Belgium on the coast north of the Somme, Tractus Armoricanus (Armorican region) from the Loire to the Somme; and perhaps another such district was created by Aetius on the Loire around Orleans. It was between these strongholds of Roman defense that the Frankish kings maneuvered: Childeric entered the service of Aegidius, who in 463 recruited him to fight the Visigoths near Orleans; The Roman general Paul, who replaced Aegidius, fought with Childeric against the Saxons in the Angers region. We do not know what happened at this time to the people over whom Childeric ruled in the north of Gaul, but, without a doubt, he continued his leisurely movement south.
Of the entire history of Childeric, we know best about his death (in 481): in 1653 in the city of Tournai, in the middle of a Roman cemetery, his grave was found, which implies the presence of some continuity in the life of this city. However, Childeric was not the only king of the Franks: the sources mention that after his death other Frankish kings ruled in Cambrai and Cologne, and this is not counting two more (though we do not know where exactly they ruled). Until about 508, the Franks were ruled by a group of related kings rather than by a single monarch. We do not know for sure who led the Frankish movement to the southeast (there is an assumption that the Franks should have captured Mainz around 459, and Trier, Metz and Toul around 475). In the era when Clovis was on the throne, this movement was limited by three almost certain milestones: Soissons, which is certain that in the fifth year of Clovis's reign it was still the capital of Syagrius, son of Aegidius; Verdun, which the Life of Saint Maximin of Orleans says was conquered by Clovis; and Worms, which the Ravenna cosmographer assigns to the Alamanni.
It is possible that the Frankish kings enjoyed widespread support in the territory extending to the Loire, thanks to the settlement there of laeti (lets), settlers, and their own campaigns. This explains the fact that in the subsequent era we hear almost nothing about Clovis’s seizure of the lands between the Seine and the Loire: this was not a real conquest, but only the return of the Franks to land where they had been more than once before; they only needed to suppress some pockets of Roman resistance, such as Soissons and Paris, and there was no need for the methodical conquest of the entire region. The arrival of the Franks had nothing in common with the invasion of the Goths into Italy and Spain or the Vandals into Africa, which can be placed in a clear chronological framework and depicted as lines on a map.
With Clovis, the Franks, hitherto in the darkness of obscurity, instantly come to the fore. But it is difficult to cleanse the historical figure of this conqueror of all superficial elements. For almost ten years we have not known in what chronological order to place the most decisive episodes of his life; we practically do not know what his title meant, and, of course, we are unable to say anything about his political views. The only narrative even partially devoted to his reign is the work of Gregory of Tours, written after 576, that is, three quarters of a century late. The narrative itself looks like a rather hypothetical reconstruction of events, built by Gregory on the basis of extremely laconic chronicle sources and some oral traditions. Moreover, the tasks that Gregory set for himself were not strictly historical, and especially in this matter: for the Church, Clovis - the instrument of its triumph - could only be a messenger of Providence. But it is absolutely impossible to do without Gregory: in addition to his text, we have only a few letters and lives of saints, containing only fleeting references to this king.
Clovis must have been born around 465: he was the son of Childeric and his wife Basina, originally from the Thuringian tribe (which explains the fact that one of Clovis’s first military actions was a campaign against Thuringia). And before his rise to power, which undoubtedly took place in 481, we know nothing else about him. In the fifth year of his reign (that is, in 486), he, together with his relative Ragnahar, king of Cambrai, attacked Syagrius, son of Aegidius, “king of the Romans,” whose residence was in Soissons. Having been defeated, Syagrius fled to Toulouse to the Visigoth king Alaric II; but this Alaric betrayed him to Clovis, who ordered his death. This success, of course, brought Clovis power over the entire territory as far as the Loire; in any case, in the fifteenth year of his reign, Amboise was on the border of his state. Subsequently (but it is not known exactly when) Clovis got rid of his ally Ragnahar and became the sole ruler of the conquered country.
We will not follow every step of Clovis, but we will still note the most important stages of his military operations. Some of his campaigns were directed to the east: these were campaigns against the Thuringians (491) and the Alamanni (495? or 505–506?), marked by victories. They prepared a Frankish protectorate over West Germany, which was under the sons of Clovis. For the most part, military operations developed in a southern direction - this is the ingloriously ended war with the Burgundians (or at least with the Gundobad party) in 500–501, and most importantly, the campaign against the Visigoths of Alaric II, until the decisive victory at Vouille in 507 Finally, during the campaign against the Alamanni, Clovis, married to Chrodechild, a Burgundian of the orthodox religion, vowed to become an orthodox Christian. On the day of the Nativity of Christ (496? or 498? or 506?) in Reims, he was baptized from the hands of Bishop Remigius. His people gradually followed his example and as a result - the first of the barbarian conquerors - shared faith and cult with the defeated Romans.
Let us dwell on the defeat of the Visigoths and the annexation of the southwestern part of Gaul to the Frankish kingdom. The Goths, who had owned Aquitaine for three generations, were firmly rooted in these lands, especially since through Provence they could receive help from the Ostrogoths of Italy. But they were Arians, and Clovis was an orthodox Christian, for ten years (or several months). Some bishops of the kingdom of Alaric II - Quintianus of Rodez, Volusian and Ver of Tours - had long been intriguing in favor of the Franks. On the other hand, the Byzantine Emperor Anastasius, jealous of Theodoric the Great, encouraged any action that could harm the Goths, and, of course, encouraged Clovis to do this, while Theodoric tried in vain to become a mediator between the Thracian and Visigothic kings. The Burgundians, perhaps taking orders from Constantinople, sided with Clovis, despite the recent war between him and Gundobad.
After a meeting with Clovis in Amboise, Alaric II felt the approach of danger. In 506, he took more and more conciliatory steps towards the orthodox believers: he returned the expelled bishops, allowed a council to be held in Agde, and, of course, published (February 2, 506) the Breviary of Alaric (cf. p. 264). The Romans of Auvergne, under the leadership of Apollinaris, Sidonius' own son, provided him with effective support. But this was not enough.
We know little about the course of the fighting. Having received reinforcements from his relative the king of Cologne, Clovis followed the route from Tours to Poitiers. The battle took place at some distance from this last city, at Vouya. Alaric II was killed. Clovis hastened to capture both of his capitals, Bordeaux and Toulouse, and take possession of the treasury, while the Burgundians reached the Limousin itself and the gates of Toulouse.
Clovis was content to capture the north and west of the ancient kingdom of the Visigoths. Definitely, he did not have enough strength for more, and prudence suggested him not to tease Theodorich by going out to the Mediterranean Sea itself. The Franks did not interfere with the retreat of the Visigoths to Spain, nor with maintaining the bridge between the two Gothic powers through Septimania and Provence. It is unlikely that Clovis took possession of Gascony south of the Garonne. But he considered it his duty to eradicate Arianism in the conquered areas.
Upon his return from the campaign that ended at Vouillet - as a result of which Clovis's kingdom doubled in size and included several of the "most Roman" regions of the West - Clovis took part in a mysterious ceremony in Tours. About her we know only from eight lines of Gregory of Tours: Clovis received the title of consul from the Emperor Anastasius, donned a purple tunic and diadem in the Basilica of St. Martin and rode through the city, scattering gold and silver, and was greeted as “consul and Augustus.” Next we will consider possible interpretations of this event. This episode remained without practical consequences (Frankish kings never held the titles of consul or Augustus), but, with the blessing of the empire, it symbolically sanctified the alliance between the conquering king and the Romans of the south, who, having got rid of the Goths, provided Clovis's successors with a significant part of the staff to govern the state .
We know practically nothing about the last years of Clovis’s reign, except for two very important facts. First of all, we are talking about the liquidation of the Frankish kings, most importantly, Sigebert, the sovereign of Cologne. Clovis sought out and killed all his relatives, thereby establishing a monopoly of his own dynasty within the hitherto extensive royal family. Paris was then chosen as the permanent royal residence, located very far from the starting points of the Frankish conquest in a Gallo-Roman environment almost untouched by it. These decisions reveal Clovis's desire to build his state on completely different foundations than his predecessors: henceforth the Merovingian kingdom represented an innovative synthesis of Roman and Germanic elements.
Clovis died in Paris on November 27, 511. However, the Frankish onslaught, in the form of political expansion rather than popular migration, continued unabated for another generation. In a western direction, the second generation of Merovingians advanced so much that they came into contact with the Bretons, that is, a little further than the Rennes-Vannes line. Gascony in the southwest was occupied as far as the Pyrenees. And most importantly, it was defeated and annexed in 533–534. The Burgundian kingdom in the southeast was divided, and in 537, with the unanimous consent of the Ostrogoths, who were on the verge of destruction, and their enemy Justinian, Provence was conquered. Thus, all of Gaul, except Lower Brittany and Septimania, was united under the rule of the Franks.
To Gaul the second generation of Merovingians added most of hitherto independent Germany down to the middle Danube, the Bohemian Mountains and approximately the Halle-Duisburg line. This conquest was superficial and not very reliable, little is known about it; but if we neglect it, we will not be able to cover the activities of the Merovingians in its entirety. This campaign was led by the sons and grandsons of Clovis - mainly the kings of Reims and Metz Theodoric (511-534) and his son Theodebert (534-548), who were able to take advantage of the gradual weakening of Ostrogothic influence north of the Alps.
It is quite possible that this policy was inspired and carried out by a Roman statesman, the patrician Parthenius, a descendant of the Emperor Avitus, a Provençal who went into the service of the Franks, leaving the Ostrogothic king Theodoric. His main idea was to impose on the Merovingian king the same policies that Cassiodorus had pursued under Theodoric the Great. Without a doubt, it was he who gave Gothic features to the law of Southern Germany (Alemannia, Bavaria). To obtain funds for big politics, he wanted to reintroduce a regular land tax in Gaul, for which the crowd stoned him after the death of Theodobert. Despite the death of Parthenius, his policy, in fact, was quite successful; it became the starting point for a gradual evolution that finally brought Germany closer to the former lands of the empire.
Thuringia, conquered by Theodoric and Clothar around 530, became a protectorate under the control of the Frankish dukes (dukes), but remained pagan. Theodoric, and later Chlothar, attacked Saxony: first the Saxons yielded and began to pay tribute, and then, around 555, they rebelled and regained their freedom. In relation to the Alamanni, Clovis acted more straightforwardly than anywhere else: he destroyed their royal family and established a protectorate over the Rhineland part of their territory. The rest was conquered after 536 by Theodebert. The West (Alsace and the Palatinate) was firmly united with the kingdom of Austrasia, under the influence of the bishops of Strasbourg and Basel, and during the 5th century. accepted Christianity; Trans-Rhine Alemannia, ruled by local dukes, on the contrary, remained very independent and pagan until about 750. In Bavaria and Pannonia, former protectorates of the Ostrogoths, the Franks became their heirs. About 555 Chlothar imposed his suzerainty on the Bavarian duke; his influence at some point extended to the Lombards. In the 7th century this expansion, which reached its apogee around 560, was followed by a clear decline. It was accompanied (mainly in Alsace) by exclusively civilizational and assimilation activities. Nevertheless, this is one of the greatest ^events in European history. The German world for the first time submitted to power with a center west of the Rhine and put an end to tribal fragmentation. Only the Frisians and Saxons, who lived between the Alps and the North Sea, retained complete independence.
Thus a small people, whose petty rulers had fought bitterly before 470 over several regions on the Rhine and in Belgium, became masters in three generations from the Pyrenees to the Saale and from the English Channel to the middle Danube. What is even more surprising is that this hastily built state turned out to be the most durable in the entire barbarian West. This, no doubt, was due to the relative balance between the Roman and German components that was established in it.
A tribe first mentioned in chronicles in 242 AD. e.
According to a contemporary, in this year one of the Frankish detachments invaded Gaul near the lower Rhine and was defeated by the tribune of the VI Legion Aurelian, the future emperor.
In modern German, "Franken" refers to both the ancient Franks and the modern inhabitants of Franconia.
Etymology [ | ]
The term "Franks" still causes debate among historians and philologists. First found in the form of lat. francus Diefenbach believed that the root was of Celtic origin. Grimm traced it back to Old Germanic. franco- "free man". Some other researchers trace it back to Old English. franca - “javelin”, “small spear”. In French it means “honest”, “open”.
They are divided into two large groups. The first is the Salic Franks (from the Latin salis - “sea coast”), also called northern, or upper, settled in the 4th century in the lower reaches of the Rhine and Scheldt. The second group - the so-called “coastal”, or lower, or Ripuarian Franks (from the Latin ripa - “river bank”), lived in the middle reaches of the Rhine and Maine.
The term "Franks" in the 3rd - early 4th centuries. n. e. used in relation to the following Germanic tribes: Chatti, Hamavam, Tencteri, Bructeri, Sigambra. During this period, the Germans experienced a collapse of old tribal relations and rapid property stratification. The former tribes consolidated into large associations - tribal unions. Even earlier, the Gothic union was formed, and the Suevian, Marcomanni and Alamannian unions arose.
Story [ | ]
The Franks, at a time when their leaders were Gennobaud, Marcomir and Sunno, rushed to Germany (here we mean the Roman province of Germany on the left bank of the Rhine) and, crossing the border, killed many inhabitants, devastated the most fertile regions, and also brought fear to residents of Cologne. When this became known in the city of Trier, the military leaders Nannin and Quintin, to whom Maxim entrusted his young son and the protection of Gaul, having recruited an army, came to Cologne.
Many historians report that the same Franks came from Pannonia and first of all settled the banks of the Rhine. Then from here they crossed the Rhine, passed through Thuringia and there, in districts and regions, they elected themselves long-haired kings from their first, so to speak, more noble families (ibid.). In 242, one of the Frankish detachments invaded the territory of the Roman Empire (in Gaul near the lower Rhine) and was defeated by the tribune of the VI Legion Aurelian, the future emperor. In 261 the Franks crossed the Rhine again. The ruler of the separate state of Gaul (259-274), Postumus, drove them back across the Rhine.
By the middle of the 5th century, the Franks were divided into two groups: the "Rhenish" (or Ripuarian Franks) united within a single kingdom centered in Cologne, with the imperial legates residing in the praetor's palace. And the northern Franks, who from the 4th century received the name “Salic Franks,” were fragmented into numerous small principalities in the 5th century.
The Salic Franks were defeated by the Romans in the 4th century, but in the 5th century, under the leadership of their leader Clovis, the Franks conquered the bulk of Gaul and formed the Kingdom of the Franks. The laws and principles of the social system of the Franks are recorded in the Salic Truth. The Salic Franks became the basis for the Dutch, but primarily for the Flemish nations, while their part, assimilated by the Gauls and Romans and having lost their language, became part of the French and especially the Walloon nations. The Ripuarian Franks, who retained their language, formed the basis of the population of Franconia and other German states, to a lesser extent the Netherlands.
State of the Franks[ | ]
The emergence of the Frankish state dates back to the reign of King Clovis (481-511). Among his predecessors, the sources mention the first prince of the Salic Franks
free - in transactions of purchase and sale (supply) of goods, a term denoting the distribution of transport costs between the seller and the buyer to the place specified in the contract (for example, a freight car, a freight car, a buyer's warehouse, etc.).
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
FRANCO
Ivan Yakovlevich (27.VIII.1856 - 28.V.1916) - Ukrainian. writer, scientist and society. activist Genus. in the village Naguevichi in Austria Galicia (now the village of Ivano-Frankovo, Lviv region of the Ukrainian SSR) in the family of a blacksmith. He studied in Lvov, then in Vienna Universities. In 1874 he began publishing his works in the Lviv student college. magazine "Friend". Continued the Ukrainian traditions. and Russian revolutionary democrats. Under the influence of Marxism, F.'s views (including historical ones) developed from the ideology of the revolution. democracy to science socialism and historical materialism. Translated into Ukrainian for the first time. language some works of K. Marx and F. Engels. In 1878 he published the magazine "Hromadskii Friend", coll. "Dzvin", "Hammer". In 1890, together with M. Pavlik, he organized a radical party with democracy. program and printed organ (since 1890 - "People", since 1891 - "Hliborob"). In 1894-97 he published a magazine. "Live the word." In 1895 F. was elected a member of the Scientific. society named after T. G. Shevchenko, and from 1898 became one of the editors of his monthly magazine. "Literary and scientific journal". In 1895, 1897 and 1898 he ran as a deputy from the peasants in Austria. parliament and the Galician diet. In numerous scientific and journalistic F.'s articles and monographs ("What is progress?", "Dante Alighieri. Characteristics of the Middle Ages", "Notes on the history of Ukraine - Rus'", "Studies of Ukrainian folk songs", etc.) covered various problems of world history and especially the history of Ukraine; A large place in them is devoted to Ukrainian history. the peasantry - the processes of its enslavement and the struggle against feudal rule. oppression, the development of commodity-money relations, the elimination of serfdom and the development of capitalism in Galicia. In his writings, F. emphasized that ist. development of Ukrainian and Russian peoples walked in close friendship. relationships, considering the reunification of Ukraine with Russia as a historically necessary, progressive phenomenon. Works: Create, vol. 1-20, K., 1950-56: Works, trans. from Ukrainian, vol. 1-10, M., 1956-59. Lit.: I. I. Franko as a historian. (36th article), K., 1956; Gurzhiy I., Franko as a historian of the working people, "Bichizna", 1956, No. 8; him, Ivan Franko as a historian, "Communist of Ukraine", 1966, No. 8; Kovalenko L. B., I. Franko about the history of feudal-kriposnytsko? eras in Ukraine, "Naukovi notes of the Uzhgorod State University", 1957, vol. 25. S. M. Shevchenko. Kyiv.
Excellent definition
Incomplete definition ↓
History of the Franks Kings with long hair In search of the homeland of the Franks Rus-Baltavars Franks and Varangians
HISTORY OF THE FRANKS
The Franks were a group of Germanic tribes (Bructers, Hamavs, Chatti, etc.) who lived on the banks of the Rhine. They were divided into Salic and Ripuarian. At the end of the 5th century, the Franks invaded and conquered Gaul. They received their common name - “Franks” from the Romans.
On TV, at first glance, there is nothing to doubt that the Franks are Germans. However, most likely, this is so. The common Franks were Germans, at least most of them. But their leaders...
In the 7th century, Fredegar Scholastic named Francion, son of Priam, the first duke of the Franks. Priam was king in Troy. Troy again!
One of the main sources on the early history of the Franks is the Book of the History of the Franks by an unnamed author. It is believed that it was written at the beginning of the 8th century. It is difficult to judge how true this is. But in any case, you should consider the text of this book and, regardless of the possible time of its creation, comment on the information contained in it. Even if the book was written several centuries later than the accepted date, there is still a high probability that some real events formed the basis of this work. Here and below will be excerpts from the “Book of the History of the Franks” translated by Thietmar from the site http://www.vostlit.info.
“I want to tell the beginning, origin and deeds of the Frankish kings and their peoples. In Asia there is a city of the Trojans, it is called Ilium and Aeneas ruled there. The people were brave and strong, the men [were] full of indomitable belligerence and waged constant wars until they subjugated the surrounding peoples. Then the kings of Greece rose up with a large army against Aeneas, and fought with him in a terrible battle, and many of the Trojan people died there. Aeneas fled from him and locked himself in Ilium; they fought for this city for 10 years in a row. When they finally captured it, the tyrant Aeneas fled and moved his people to Italy to fight. Other Trojan princes, such as Priam and Antenor, loaded the remaining army, twelve thousand people, onto ships and led them to the banks of the Don. They passed through the swamps of Maeotis, near which they finally arrived in Pannonia and built a city, to which they gave, in memory of their ancestors, the name Sicambria, where they lived for many years and became a large people.”
Let's start with the fact that the mention of the events of the Trojan War makes us somewhat wary. Traditional history will definitely refute the reliability of such information, considering it an echo of Greek myths that somehow reached the author of the 8th century. I can imagine two options to explain these lines. According to one of them, “The Book of the History of the Franks” was written in the Middle Ages as a historical and artistic work in a genre that was in demand at that time. Indeed, the story of the fall of Troy was popular at that time, and Homer was far from the only one who developed this topic. At the same time, it can be assumed that some portion of real events could have been used by the nameless author of the “Book of the History of the Franks.”
Another option is based on the fact that the events of the Trojan War were not so distant in time from the events described.
Considering the above text, it should be noted the mention of the flight of Aeneas with his people to Italy; this fact has already been repeatedly discussed on the pages of “Invasion”. But, perhaps, for the first time we come across information about the fate of Priam, the last Trojan king. During the Trojan War, Priam was already so old that he did not take part in battles. Homer does not say anything about the death of Priam, but according to later myths, which Virgil used, Priam was killed by Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles, at the moment when the Greeks, having broken into Troy, went on a rampage throughout the city.
In the Book of the History of the Franks, Priam not only survived, but also managed to reach Pannonia, where some time later he died in a battle with the Romans. However, first Priam and his people flee to the banks of the Don. But why there?
In the book “The Rus' That Was-2,” I suggested that the Iranian-speaking Antes-Scythians, who lived in the Black Sea region, at the dawn of civilization founded Byzantium, named after the Antes. Then this name spread to the entire ancient ANTIQUE era, and the word “antiquity” itself comes from the name of the antes, and not from the word “ancient”, as is believed. Thus, the Antes are the ancient inhabitants of Greece and Asia Minor, more precisely, their coastal strip. The Greek language is close to the Indo-Iranian languages. If we consider that by the time the Semitic invasion began, the Greeks occupied only coastal territories, it is quite possible to assume their origin precisely from the Black Sea region, Indo-Iranian in language in those years. The Greek language itself is Newspeak, which developed in the Eastern Mediterranean harems of invaders on the basis of the local Antic language.
Therefore, the flight of the Trojans (Ants by origin) from the Semites-Pelasgians who defeated them to the Black Sea region becomes justified. The Trojans fled to their relatives, with whom they maintained the closest economic and political relations. However, soon invaders invaded the Black Sea region; this wave (Semites-Avars) went through the Caucasus region. The Trojans, along with many local tribes - Bulgars, Alans, Goths and others, flee to the west, to Pannonia.
Now let’s continue the story of the “Book of the History of the Franks.” “At that time, as had often happened before, the terrible, evil Alans rebelled against Valentinian, the emperor of the Romans, and other peoples. He formed a large army in Rome, moved against them and won a decisive victory in the battle. Defeated, they crossed the Danube, and arrived in their flight to the Maeotian swamps. Valentinian then said: “Whoever penetrates these swamps and drives out this evil people from there, I will pay him an honorable salary for ten years.” Then the Trojans gathered, made an ambush, and they understood a lot about this, [and] with the rest of the Roman army they burst into the swamps of Maeotis, drove them out of there and destroyed them by force of the sword. Then Emperor Valentinian, because of their unshakable courage, gave them the name Franks, which means “wild” in the Attic language.
This passage is more difficult to comment on. The absurdities of the text are striking. The Romans and Trojans are chasing the Alans almost all over Europe, reaching them all the way to the Kuban region. The Trojans here are allies of the Romans. Perhaps this episode was inspired by the unnamed author by the events associated with the battle on the Catalaunian fields, when the Huns and their allies retreated, and after the death of Attila, some of them returned to the Black Sea region. But the Alans (like the Visigoths, Burgundians and Franks) were an ally of Aetius, not Attila. Although from time to time there are suggestions that the Alans could have fought on the side of Attila. However, the history of those years is very complicated; yesterday's enemies often became friends, and friends became mortal enemies. For example, Jordan wrote about the events that occurred before this significant battle: “Aetius fought victoriously with the Burgundians, prevented the expansion of the Visigothic possessions, and achieved the defeat of the Frankish king Chlodion.” And a few years later the Franks, Visigoths and Burgundians fought on the side of Aetius.
Battle of the Catalaunian Fields. Medieval miniature.
Let us return again to the history of the Franks: the Trojans kill the Roman tax collectors, and “when the emperor heard this, he, losing his temper with anger, ordered an army consisting of Romans and other peoples, transferred the supreme command [over him] to Arestark and moved troops against francs There, however, a fierce battle took place between both peoples. Eventually the Franks realized that they were outmatched by such a large force and withdrew with very heavy losses; and Priam, the bravest of them, died there. They left Sicambria, arrived to the cities of Germany located in the most remote [places along] the Rhine, and with their leaders Marcomir, son of Priam, and Sunno, son of Antenor, settled there; they lived here for many years. After the death of Sunno, they came to the conclusion, following the example of other peoples, to choose a king for themselves. And Faramir advised them this, and so they chose his son, Faramund, as their curly-haired king. At the same time, for the first time, laws appeared among them, developed by the elders of the tribe, the names Vizovast, Vizogast, Arogast and Salegast in the places of Bothagm, Salehagm, and Videhagm, on the other side of the Rhine.
After the death of King Faramund they chose his son Chlodion as king with curly hair in his father's state. From that time on, kings with curly [hair] became the rule.”
How old was Priam? Second point: Faramir is a Slavic name, but the name of his son is Faramund, which is more likely Hun-Ugric. But I do not exclude the possibility that here we are talking about only one person, whose name in Slavic sounds like Faramir, and in Ugric - Faramund. After several hundred years, the nameless author of the text of the “Book” reached two versions of the same name, which he considered to belong to two different people. This is how father and son appeared instead of one historical character.
But these are the names of the leaders, the names of ordinary Trojans are unknown to us. In the new lands where the Trojans moved, most likely they mixed with local Germanic tribes, forming a Frankish community. Faramund was the grandfather of Meroving, from whose name the name of the Merovingian dynasty came. This dynasty is called the dynasty of kings with long hair. If one of the members of the dynasty refused to claim the throne, he cut his hair. However, in the above passage, instead of a king with long hair, the translation is a king with curly hair. Southerners, the same Semites, often have curly hair.
The Last Merovingian, painting by E.V. Lumine (XIX century)
Here is an interesting excerpt from the book Holy Blood and Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Lee and Henry Lincoln: “Like the Patriarchs of the Old Testament, even after they converted to Christianity, the Merovingian rulers were polygamous and maintained luxurious harems. Even when the aristocracy, yielding to pressure from the Church, decided to accept strict monogamy, the monarchs refused to follow this, and the Church, in protest, was forced to agree to turn a blind eye to this privilege, about which one English historian, surprised, wrote in the following words: “Why was polygamy tacitly approved by the Franks?” ? Perhaps we are dealing here with the ancient custom of the royal family, a family of such rank that no, even the most profitable dynastic marriage can further ennoble its blood, and it cannot be defiled by the blood of a slave... Will the queen be born into the royal dynasty or from a courtesan - it didn’t matter... In his own blood there was this power of the family, and everyone who belonged to him shared it...” Others, who meant the same thing, asked themselves: “Perhaps the Merovingians are the German Heerkonige dynasty, descendants of an ancient royal dynasty from the time of the great migration of peoples?”
I will give an excerpt from the eight-volume “History of Europe from ancient times to the present day”: “Moral prohibitions also sharply weakened in the sphere of marriage and family relations: Chlothar I, without hesitation, married his son, King Dagobert I, to his mother’s sister, for this was part of political Chlothar's calculations. Dagobert carried out his father's instructions without any resistance, especially since it did not in any way prevent him from acquiring other wives. All the others had entire harems of concubines - Christian! - Merovingian kings."
However, according to AB, in those early times, evangelical Christianity did not yet exist, and the message about polygamy inherent in the Merovingians is quite consistent with the actions of the Semitic newcomers, although it cannot be denied that polygamy was common in many pre-Christian ruling families. If, in the above example, we accept, from the point of view of AB, that Dagobert’s mother could have been Clothar’s concubine, then Dagobert’s taking as a concubine the sister of his mother-concubine is already quite understandable.
A mandatory attribute for the royal family - long hair that could not be cut, again indicates their Semitic origin (more on this below).
In conclusion, I will cite the last excerpt from the Book of the History of the Franks.
“This Merovei begot a son named Childeric, who in turn became the father of the famous and brave King Clovis. The Franks were then unbelieving pagans and, instead of the Creator, they worshiped the gods of heaven and earth, idols and ghosts. The Romans in this part of Gaul were ruled by King Aegidius, who was sent here by the emperor. King Childeric, the son of Merovey, began with incredible unbridledness to mock the daughters of the Franks, whose master he was, and to seduce them. Angry at this, they [the Franks] wanted to kill him, out of great indignation, and drive him out of the kingdom. When he heard about this, [he] called to him his friend, the wise adviser Viomadius, and asked for advice on how to calm the raging anger of the Franks. They agreed with each other on a sign from which he [the king] should understand that he could return [to the country of the Franks] without fear and which was known only to both of them. The sign was a piece of gold broken into two pieces; King Childeric took one half with him, the other remained with Viomadius, who explained: “When I send this half of mine, know that I have reconciled the Franks with you and, without worry, return in peace.” And so King Childeric went to Thoringia and took refuge there with King Bisin and his wife.
When King Childeric left the Franks, he came up with the bad idea of making the Roman princeps Aegidius his ruler. He had already reigned for eight years, when Viomadiy, for the sake of appearance, entered into an alliance with him in order to find out his intentions. He insidiously encouraged Aegidius to enslave the Franks. He followed his advice and began to oppress them even more. Out of their fear and indignation, the Franks now, for their part, turned to Viomadius with a request to give them advice on how to approach this. He said to them: “Have you already forgotten how much the Romans oppressed your people and how they expelled you from your homeland? You [as a reward] for this expelled your wise and active king and put this arrogant and inflated imperial soldier at your head; this act of yours was truly not only not smart, but completely idiotic.” They answered: “He was double-minded towards us. Now we feel sorry [that we could] do this to our king; if only we knew where he was, he could easily be our king again.” Then this confidant of the king [Viomadius] sent him half of the solidus, which they had previously divided, with the words: “Go back to the country of the Franks, for now everything has calmed down.” He recognized the half-gold, agreed-upon sign, realized that he was now expected by the Franks and, in response to their requests, returned to his country.”
In this passage we note that “Childeric, the son of Merovee, began to mock with incredible unbridledness the daughters of the Franks, whose master he was.” It is impossible, of course, to say that the text says that Childeric was a stranger, an alien ruler for the Frankish people, but one cannot help but think about this option.
After Childeric's flight, the Roman Aegidius became the new ruler of the Franks, who began to oppress the Franks even more. I think that the Franks could well have invited the outsider Aegidius to rule instead of the Frank on the maternal side (but not on the paternal side) Childeric. The conquerors had the habit of taking as concubines the wives and daughters of murdered local leaders. Their descendants became the new leaders of the tribes enslaved by the Semites.
The grandson of Merovey was the famous Clovis, the founder of the Frankish state. However, the name of the Frankish king is translated into Russian somewhat one-sidedly. In French and English he is Clovis, and in Spanish and Italian he is Clodoveo, and only in German he is Chlodwig.
Clovis and his family. Miniature from the Great French Chronicles, XIV century. Pay attention to the images of Clovis and his wife Clotilde of Burgundy. Short, frail, with a long nose, Clovis does not make a very pleasant impression, in contrast to the pretty, tall and blond Clotilde. Who was she really? The daughter of a Burgundian leader killed by invaders or a half-breed, the daughter of a Semitic leader and a Burgundian taken as a concubine? Clovis divided his kingdom between four sons, the three youngest - the sons of Clotilde - we see in this image. And the eldest son was from another woman: “But he already had a son, named Theodoric, from a concubine” (G. Toursky).
In Latin the name was written differently: Chlodovechus, Chlodoveus, Hindowicus, Ludovicus - the same as Louis. That is, Clovis is Louis, Ludwig, Louis, etc., here, as you can see, the first letter of the name is lost. But perhaps it was not lost, but on the contrary, the Latin letter -c- appeared later? Clovis is a name believed to have German roots. However, we can also recall the Roman imperial name Claudius - Claudius (lame). Is there any relationship between these names? In any case, one cannot fail to note their phonetic similarity. But what’s interesting is that the French and English versions of this name are Clovis, removing the first extra letter, we get: Lovis. But this is the Semitic name Levi! Clovis, aka Levi...
Another source on the history of the early Franks is the book “History of the Franks” by Gregory of Tours. Here is what he writes: “Many people report that the same Franks came from Pannonia and first of all settled the banks of the Rhine. Then from here they crossed the Rhine, passed through Thoringia and there, through the districts and regions, they chose long-haired kings from their first, so to speak, more noble families. This was later confirmed by the victories of Clovis [over them], which we will talk about later. In the Consular Fasts we read that Theodomer, king of the Franks, son of Richimer, and his mother Ascyla fell by the sword. They also say that Chlogion was the king of the Franks at that time.”
And here we see that at first the Franks lived in Pannonia. Three names of the first Frankish kings appear: Richimer, his son Theodomer and Chlogion. Without a doubt, this Chlogion is listed in the Book of Frankish History under the name of Chlodion, son of Faramund. Chlodion was the father of Merovei. Fredegar in his Chronicle calls Theodomer the father of Chlodion.
So, according to one version, the father of Chlodion = Chlogion was Faramund, according to another Theodomer. I have not come across texts where Faramund is identified with Theodomer, and yet, if you look closely at these names, you can see that they are identical. Judge for yourself. Both names consist of two parts. Their second parts: -mund, -mer are as identical as the endings of the names Faramir and Faramund mentioned just above. And if you consider that the letters -t- and -f- transform into each other (for example, Theodore, Theodore), then you can see the closeness of the first parts of these names. At the same time, it is not difficult to notice that the name Faramund is a derivative of Theodomer, but not vice versa.
Theo is Greek for god. Another hint at the Trojan roots of the Frankish leaders? May be so. Rihimer is named as Theodomer's father. Interesting name. One of the Visigoth kings was a man named Rihimir. Other Visigothic kings include Theodoric. The same one who died in the battle with the Huns on the Catalaunian fields. His successors were initially Thorismund (an interesting name) and another Theodoric. The same names appear in various lists of European kings of that period. Moreover, kings of tribes of various ethnicities.
KINGS WITH LONG HAIR
In the notes to the book by G. Toursky about the special feature of the Merovingians - their long hair, it is said that such hair was a distinctive feature of the supreme god of the Germans, Odin, and that the Merovingian clan ascribed to itself divine origin. Well, it’s not surprising, because Merovey’s grandfather was Theodomer, in whose name the basis is visible - the word “god”. And Odin himself, we note, was in fact Dan, the leader of one of the 12 Jewish tribes. But Dan, unlike the other leaders, did not linger in the “promised land”, even before the formation of the Khazar state, with most of his people, he soon went further to the west.
The Merovingians did not have the right to cut their hair because of the miraculous powers that were attributed to them. And in the Bible we meet a character with long hair that has miraculous powers. This is Samson, who belonged to the tribe of Dan. Dana again!
Samson was a Nazirite, and they were considered dedicated to God. The Lord said to Moses: “All the days of his vow as a Nazarene, no razor shall touch his head. Until the days for which he dedicated himself as a Nazirite to the Lord are fulfilled, he is holy; he must let the hair grow on his head." Other conditions included a ban on the consumption of “wine and strong drink.”
Jesus Christ may also have been a Nazarene, whose nickname was the word “Nazarene.” Christ himself was from Nazareth. Later, the Jews called Christianity the “Nazarene heresy.” James, Jesus' half-brother, may also have been a Nazarene. According to the testimony of the 2nd century Christian historian Iegesif, Jacob was a saint already in his mother’s womb (his mother dedicated him to God even before birth). Having become a Nazarene, he did not drink wine or other strong drinks, did not take meat into his mouth, and never cut his hair.
Karl Menninger, in his book The War with Self, spends a lot of time identifying hair with genitals. He writes: “Dr. Leo Stone brought to my attention the results of studies in which the identification of hair with genitals was noted. In particular, it was noted that Orthodox Jews, when performing the rite of circumcision, refrain from cutting boys' hair, as if compensating for the partial loss of the primary sexual characteristic. However, I am not a specialist in Talmudic rituals and cannot claim to have a comprehensive understanding of Jewish traditions.”
I have already spoken about the replacement of castration, which was practiced among the Semites before their exodus from the region of the Armenian Highlands, with the rite of circumcision. But K. Menninger gives examples of castration in relation to the vanquished: “X. Kraus mentions that quite recently this custom was practiced in Europe. According to him, “The Montenegrins castrated captives and wore the severed penises of their enemies as amulets. Many warriors wore entire necklaces of such evidence of their valor around their necks. Perhaps the efforts of European diplomacy to pacify bandit attacks in Macedonia would have been unclaimed if it had been possible to put an end to this barbaric ritual, which constantly provoked a thirst for revenge. There are also references to bloody self-mutilation in Sicilian legends.” A similar tradition existed among the ancient Jews.”
First, we note that the region of Macedonia is mentioned here, which will be discussed below. But the biblical themes associated with this topic are worth considering a little more carefully. King Saul planned to give one of his daughters in marriage to David. But he set a condition: “So tell David: the king does not want anything except one hundred circumcisions of the Philistines, as revenge on the king’s enemies. For Saul had in mind to destroy David by the hands of the Philistines.” David killed two hundred Philistines: “And David brought their circumcision, and presented them in full to the king, that he might become the king’s son-in-law.”
Fredegar is another early medieval author who left us with information about the history of the early Franks. “The Franks, having seriously consulted, chose a long-haired king from the family of Priam, Frige and Frank - Theodomer, son of Rihimir, who was killed in a battle with the Romans. Then they appointed Chlodion, the most active man of his tribe, to reign” (“Chronicle”, from the site http:// www.vostlit.info/).
Here we see a mention of Frigg as one of the ancestors of the leaders of the Franks. Moreover, Frig (Phrygius) was the second king of the Franks after Priam. But the Frigs, as I wrote earlier, are the same Pelasgian Semites.
Western researchers note the presence of purely Jewish names in the Merovingian family. Even the name Merovei itself is of Middle Eastern origin. King Clothar's brother was called Samson, Count Bezalu was called Myron Levit, and there were two Solomons: the King of Brittany and the Count of Rousillon. Recently, a hypothesis has even been put forward about the origin of the Merovingians from the Jews of the tribe of Benjamin.
In the book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail,” the authors name French writers whose work “inspired the idea that some noble French families were of Jewish origin.” And also in the same place: “Let us remember the position of Roger Peyrefitte, who in 1965 caused a scandal among his contemporaries and made them talk a lot about himself, because he supported the same theory, but not only in relation to most of the European aristocracy, but also in relation to FGM TO ALL THE FRENCH in general."
By the way, a lot has been written about the Merovingians in the book mentioned here, but its conclusions are, of course, difficult to believe, and perhaps not all the material is reliable. However, some of the material collected by the authors certainly deserves attention. So they give a legend about the origin of Merovey himself. He had two fathers, his mother was pregnant twice: from the Frankish king, and then soon from a certain sea monster.
E.V. Lumine. Merovey. XIX century
The authors write: “In the case of Merovey, this allegory means the transfer by his mother of foreign blood or the mixing of dynastic families, the consequence of which was that the Franks were associated with another tribe that came, perhaps, “from across the sea.” Over the years and with the development of legends, it, for some unknown reason, turned into a sea creature.” In my opinion, this legend clearly supports the assertion of an alternative version of history about the actions of the Semitic invaders in the lands they conquered. Some of the local tribes were destroyed by them, and some were subjugated. At the same time, the entire male population of the tribal elite was exterminated. Young noble women became concubines of the leaders of the invaders, and they themselves became the new leaders of the tribes.
The descendants of these marriages - the future leaders - carried on their paternal side the blood of the victorious Semites, and on the female side - the blood of the old dynasty, whose men were destroyed. There is no point in convincing readers that all men of the tribal elite, including babies, were subject to destruction. Children, as you know, tend to grow, and the invaders did not need possible leaders of uprisings directed against their power in the future.
In this legend we see confirmation of an alternative version: the king of the Franks was killed, and his wife became the concubine of one of the invaders and soon gave birth to a boy who became the king of the Franks. Was she pregnant when their tribe was captured by the Semites? I doubt it, knowing how sensitive the invaders were to the issue of blood purity, clearly preferring virgins to women who already had husbands. This is directly stated in the Old Testament. It is difficult to say whether Merovei's mother was married or still a virgin at the time she was taken as a concubine. But it can already be assumed that her son was born from a forced marriage with one of the invaders.
Gaul was captured alternately by two groups of Semites. At first they were Avars who came from the east. Then - the Pelasgians, but already invading from the south. Shortly before this, they clashed in Troy, which was initially conquered by the Pelasgians, but after some time it was recaptured from them by the Avars. The winner on the plains of Gaul was revealed by the battle that took place on the Catalaunian fields. They became the Pelasgians. And their descendants from noble Frankish and Gallic women began to rule the Frankish kingdom.
“In fact, very little is known about the true origins of the Merovingians. They themselves considered themselves the descendants of Noah... They also claimed to be considered the descendants of the inhabitants of ancient Troy,” the authors of the cited book write. According to AB, let me remind you that the Pelasgians were precisely the immigrants (more precisely, fugitives) from Troy.
The Pelasgians in Gaul, as well as in other lands they captured, faced rapid assimilation among the tribes they conquered. They, of course, passed on their genes to a significant number of inhabitants of these lands, but not their language and not all the knowledge known only to people from the Armenian Highlands. The general level of knowledge among their descendants (however, not all residents were descendants of such mixed marriages, and not all men were slaughtered by the invaders) after several generations left much to be desired.
In the book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail” it is written about this: “The Frankish kingdom continues to flourish, but not in the primitive and barbaric sense of the word, as one might imagine, but on the contrary - it was a civilization comparable in some aspects to Byzantium, and the level of its development was much higher than in France, some five hundred years later, during the reign of the last monarchs of the Middle Ages. Thus, King Childeric I not only built magnificent Roman-style amphitheaters in Paris and Soissons; he was also a wonderful poet."
One can still argue about the “Roman style of amphitheatres”: it is still unknown where the first amphitheaters were built - in Gaul, Italy or on another land. But it just so happened that the ruins of amphitheaters were better preserved in Rome, which is why their ROMAN style appeared. But, most likely, the Colosseum was built in Rome sometime during the Renaissance, and therefore has survived to this day. Earlier Gallic structures were simply unlucky: time destroys them. And it is unknown whose ruins of amphitheaters are older: Rome or the French Amiens and Nîmes (a city in Languedoc).
Merovei himself is most likely either a historical fiction or the ruler of one of the local tribes. The same can be said about his descendants: too much time separates the authors of historical chronicles from the events they describe.
Merovei in the tent. Miniature from the Great French Chronicles. XIV century
The version that the Merovingians were descendants of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene has significant resonance. However, to the disappointment of readers, I will say that this option is unlikely to have taken place in history. Christ was crucified in 753, when the Merovingian dynasty had already ceased to exist: in 751, Pepin the Short, the first king of the Carolingian dynasty, came to power. The appearance of this legend may be due to the fact that the Merovingians were “kings with long hair.” That is, they were similar to the Nazarenes, to whom Christ may have belonged. True, there is still a little hope that the Merovingians actually lived not in such early times, but somewhat later. And they did not rule over the vast expanses of Western Europe, as TV tells us, but over a much more modest territory. Let's say, somewhere in the Languedoc region (Narbonne region). This is the south of France, which was at one time controlled by the Visigoths, and where there was a significant Semitic population. But these are just guesses.
Rhazes also belongs to Languedoc, where, according to legend, one of the Merovingians, Dagobert II, lived and took refuge. He was the grandson of King Dagobert I, king of Austrasia (one of the parts of the Frankish kingdom that had disintegrated by that time). Here is what the Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary writes about him: “After the death of his father (631), he became the head of the entire Frankish monarchy. An attempt to annex Bohemia and Moravia by the Frankish merchant Samo involved Dagobert I in a war in which the Austrasians were completely defeated." Let us note that Samo, according to TV, created a Slavic state, strong at that time, on the territory of Bohemia and Moravia. And according to an alternative version, that area was controlled by the Avars, who were eventually defeated by Charlemagne. Perhaps we have here again duplicates, abandoned more than a hundred and fifty years into the future.
Austrasia and Neustria
While still a child, having lost his father, Dagobert II was overthrown from the throne by the Austrasian majordomo Grimoald, the great-uncle of Charles Martell, after whom the Carolingian dynasty, which replaced the Merovingians in 751, would be named, and sent to Ireland. After 18 years, he regains his crown, but five years later he is treacherously killed. This happened on December 23, 679. “Falling from fatigue, around noon the king lay down near a stream, under a tree, and fell asleep. While he was sleeping, one of his servants - said to be his godson - sneaked up to him and killed him with a spear in the eye" ("Holy Blood and Holy Grail").
How much can you believe this legend? Why was he killed by a spear in the eye? In “The Song of the Nibelungs,” Siegfried is treacherously killed while hunting with a spear in his heel, his only vulnerable spot. There is another main character in this poem - Etzel, in whom most researchers see Attila. These are hardly coincidences; there are too many similarities in these two murders. But on TV, Attila lived more than two hundred years earlier. But according to AB there are no such inconsistencies; according to an alternative version, the murder of Dagobert could well have happened in 679. True, in “The Song of the Nibelungs” the main character’s name is different - Siegfried. But let's not forget that both the poem and the legend were written down much later, most likely several centuries later. And it can also be noted that the name Siegfried is close to the name of Dagobert’s father, whose name was Siegibert. And Dagobert's son was also called Sigibert (Sigebert)!
The murder scene also causes some surprise in this legend: the king got tired and lay down on the ground. The event took place on December 23. Yes, winters in France are warm, but probably not so warm that a tired and hot king can sleep on the ground in a winter forest.
Let me quote one more phrase from the book “The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail”: “As Robert Graves reports, indeed, the twenty-third of December was a sacred day for the tribe of Benjamin; and we remember that the twenty-third of December was chosen for the feast of St. Dagobert.” Another reference to Semitic roots?
Whether Dagobert really existed or is this just another myth of traditional history is now impossible to answer. Moreover, no documents (even if corrected and written centuries later) have survived.
“Is it any wonder that nothing is said in History about the fate of Sigibert, if all official documents concerning his father, Dagobert II, became available only in the 17th century? It’s as if the Middle Ages systematically tried to erase him from the past of France, to the point of denying his existence altogether... Today Dagobert appears in all encyclopedias, but until 1646 they could not find traces of him anywhere” (ibid.).
Concluding the conversation about Dagobert, I also want to note that this name may be directly related to the Philistine god Dagon, who was considered the brother of the god Ilu. The last name corresponds to the Hebrew El - one of the names of God. Are there too many coincidences in favor of an alternative version of history?
IN SEARCH OF THE HOMELAND OF THE FRANKS
Fredegar reports that the Franks were divided into two parts. One of them settled in Macedonia, taking a new name from the local residents, “the other part of the tribe, captured by deceit by Ulysses, left Phrygia, however, released, they, together with their wives and children, wandered through many countries, choosing France as their king, after which they began to be called Franks.”
Please note that part of the Franks settled in Macedonia, which I spoke about a little higher, citing an excerpt from the text of K. Menninger. Perhaps this is one of those coincidences that often occurs in history. But, probably, a group of migrants from the Azov region was led by people of the tribe of Dan, from whom the ritual described above originated in Macedonia.
“As rumor claims, the third branch of this tribe are the Turks, for when the Franks wandered through Asia, waging numerous wars, then penetrated into Europe, some of them settled on the banks of the Danube between Oceanus and Thrace. They chose a king named Torquat, and from him the tribe took the name Turks.” The Turks, as I have already written several times, are not those modern Turks who are Turks by language, but people of Ugric origin. The Hungarian-Ugric people, who settled, by the way, in the same area of the Danube, were also called Turks in the early Middle Ages. In our case, in the original composition of the Franks, moving west from the Black Sea region, there were Ugrians in large numbers. But more on this later.
Finally, the “Great French Chronicles” speaks of the first king of the Franks, Faramund, who was the son of a certain newcomer Marcomir. The latter taught the Franks how to use weapons and build fortifications around their settlements, and then gave them his son, because the Franks wanted to have their own king “like other nations.”
So who are the Franks? Descendants of the Trojans, or their enemies the Pelasgians, or maybe still the Germans? Or the above-mentioned Ugric Turks? In my opinion, the basis of the tribal association of the Franks at the time of their invasion of Gaul was made up of the Germans who lived in the region of the lower and middle reaches of the Rhine. The Franks (one might say proto-Franks) who came to the Rhine, settling among the more numerous Germans, began to quickly dissolve in their midst. But the clan elite of the Franks was of alien origin. This is what should interest us in the first place.
Here it is appropriate to quote lines from the eight-volume “History of Europe from Ancient Times to the Present Day”: “It is instructive that the predominance of Germanic names in the anthroponymy of Gaul dates back not to the 6th century, but to the 7th-9th centuries: it did not reflect the numerical ratio of Germans and Halo-Romans, but due to political and prestigious circumstances the gradual Germanization of the nominal fund, which could only manifest itself centuries later.”
How so? Judging by TV, the Germanic tribe of the Franks in the 5th century, under the leadership of Clovis, conquered the main part of Gaul. The Franks initially spoke one of the Germanic languages, and only closer to the 7th century did they switch to the Romance language. But in the anthroponymy of Gaul it’s the other way around! Before the seventh century there were few Germanic names, and only starting from the 7th century. they begin to dominate. This is some kind of nonsense. But this is a traditional story!
According to an alternative version, all history known to us only begins in the seventh century! And the main, ordinary part of the Franks, let me remind you, according to AB, consisted of Germans. So the anthroponymy of Gaul turns out to be dominated by Germanic names. The transition of the local population to the Romance language was largely artificial and spread along with Christianity. I wrote about this in detail in my previous book, “Invasions.”
But the leaders of the Franks were not of Germanic origin; the presence of a certain number of Germanic names among them speaks precisely of assimilation processes, when the newcomers began to dissolve into the surrounding tribes and peoples.
From the history of the Visigoths the name of two Visigothic rulers has come down to us. These are Goths with the same name Aguila. One Aguila died a hundred years after the death of Attila, the second ruled in the Narbonne region in the early years of the Moorish invasion of Spain. It is curious that the first Aguila, who died in 554 at the hands of his own subjects, was defeated by the Byzantine army shortly before his death. The Byzantines, by the way, were called ROMANS.
His very name - Agila - resembles the name of the Hun Attila. Attila, according to legend, was killed by his young wife (that is, also not at the hands of others), and before that he was defeated by the Roman Aetius. Coincidences?
History also tells us that at the end of the 8th century, Charlemagne displaced the Bavarian Duke of Tassilon from the Agilolfing family. Aguila, Agilolfings. Of course, you will say that both the Visigoths and the Bavarians were Germans, which is why these names are similar.
That’s how it is, but, according to TV, the history of the Visigoths and Bavarians had long diverged by that time, however, it was never common, these are completely different tribes, which clearly reduces the likelihood of such a coincidence. But according to AB, both Huns and Avars are different names for one common conglomerate of tribes that invaded from the east. The name Agila is close to the name of the Hun (i.e., Avar) Attila, and the Agilolfing clan ruled the Bavarians, whose tribal ethnonym again comes from the Avars. So this possibility should not be discounted either.
In this chapter, when reviewing information from medieval authors, two regions of the possible exodus of the Frankish leaders were already named - Phrygia in Asia Minor and the Azov region - the region of Khazaria.
The 19th century historian Yu. I. Venelin at one time put forward an interesting hypothesis; he believed that the Rus and the Franks were one people. True, Venelin considered the Rus either Slavs (in “Old Frankia”) or Celts (in “New Frankia”). An entire chapter in the book “The Rus' that Was-2” was devoted to the Rus and the search for their homeland. The Rus turned out to be a Ugric tribe related to the Bulgars.
Is there any evidence of the identity of the Rus and Franks? The successor of George Amartol under 941 said: “Rus is from the Frankish family.” Several decades later, the successor of Theophanes’ Chronicle wrote: “They (Russians) are called nomads and are descended from the Frankish family.” In Ilovaisky one can find a reference to the words of one of the Byzantine chronicles: “Rus, the so-called Dromites from the Frankish family.” By the way, the very name “Franks” in Germanic languages means “free”.
Now it is difficult to determine the original source of this ethnonym, whether Roman, Germanic or some other (for example, you can see the similarity with the word “pharaoh”: Frank and Pharaoh-k). However, it was most likely applied primarily to the top of the tribe. And it consisted of Semites with numerous Ugrians who joined them - the Rus, as well as people of Antian origin. And they were just free. Let us remember that the Semites-Khazars entrusted it to the Rus to collect tribute from distant lands, for which they subsequently paid with the raid of Svyatoslav, a descendant of these Rus - tax collectors.
The “Chronicle” of the Continuer Amartol also existed in a Slavic translation. But the translator (or ancient Russian editor) called Rus' “from the Varangian race of beings.” That is, the Franks were replaced by the Varangians, despite the fact that there was no mention of the “Varangian family” in the Greek text. Based on this, Shakhmatov proposed the etymology of the word Varangian from the Greek “franc”, i.e. fryag, Italian, and also French. However, philologists rejected Shakhmatov’s hypothesis.
To solve the problem, we will use the “Notes” of Ibn Fadlan. Their author himself was part of the embassy of the Baghdad caliph to the ruler of Volga Bulgaria.
RUS - BALTAVARY
What was the name of the king of Volga Bulgaria? Ibn Fadlan has several answers to this question. Here they are: “When the letter from al-Hasan, son of Baltavar, king of the Slavs, arrived.” Elsewhere in the text of the Notes we encounter “Truly, these are the ambassadors of the king of the Arabs to my matchmaker Almush son of Shilka.” And in the text there is a mention of “Baltavar, king of the Bulgar,” the inhabitants of the country prayed for him even before the arrival of the caliph’s embassy.
The name Baltavar appears twice: both the name of the king's father and the name of the king himself. But in the latter case there is a clarification: the prayer “Oh, Allah! Keep King Baltavar, the king of the Bulgars, in the well-being” was read even before the arrival of the embassy, which allows us to conclude that Baltavar, the father of al-Hasan, was the previous Bulgar king. Unless, of course, Baltavar is a name, and not a title used for all Bulgarian kings. But if this is still a name, then, most likely, King Baltavar died shortly before the arrival of the embassy, i.e. before 921-922.
Thus, we are left with two sets of names: Hasan-Baltavar and Almush-Shilki. Which one is true? Hassan is a name of Arabic origin and means good, virtuous, handsome, with valuable qualities. But where do the Arabs come from in the Volga region? Shouldn't we admit that Hassan is just an Arab interpretation of the name of the Bulgarian king?
In the book by S. D. Goitein “Jews and Arabs - their connections over the centuries” you can read: “In the East, however, in such cases, Arabic names are used without hesitation, and the custom is to have a double name - one in the language of a given country, the other in Jewish - has the widest distribution. Thus, sometimes in some countries a person called Hasan (“Beautiful”) in Arabic could also be called by the Hebrew equivalent of this name - Yaphet; or vice versa". And again: “But in other places, for example in Yemen, people were called either Arabic or Hebrew, and these names were used for all occasions. Thus, Hasan or Musa, even if he was a rabbi, was always addressed by his Arabic name, whether in the synagogue or in documents."
In the same way, the Bulgarian king, bearing the Bulgarian name Almush, was called by the Arabs (Ibn Fadlan) in his own way: Hasan, that is, “good, handsome.”
Great complications in unraveling the names of the Bulgarian kings are also caused by discrepancies in the translation of Ibn Fadlan’s “Notes”. For example, A.P. Kovalevsky gave the following interpretation of the ancient text: “When the letter from Almush, the son of Shilka Yiltyvar, the king of the Slavs, arrived.” But in his first edition of Ibn Fadlan he first indicated the name of al-Hasan, and in the second edition the name of Almush. You can also find the following translation options: “Almush, son of Shilka, Bltvar” (and in the Meskhed manuscript the same fragment reads as “Hasan, son of Bltvar”), “Almas Ibn-Shalki Baltavar”.
From these options it follows that “Baltavar” is still not a name, but a title. But what can this title mean: baltavar, bltvar? It can be assumed that this word consists of two parts. Blah-thing. What is “bl”? There is no doubt that this fragment is of Semitic origin. There are two possible options here. For example, the Bulgar tribe is the Bulgars! In Arabic “bal” means “head”, from this word the name of the Bulgar people came.
On the other hand, Baal (Baal) is a typically Semitic god, whose cult was widespread in Israel and with whom they fought with varying success in the pages of the Bible. Baal - literally "lord", "master". The wife of Baal was considered the goddess Astarte, whose cult was similar to the cult of Cybele. The Old Testament prophets often mention the cult of Baal as a cult of shame. Let me remind you that the servants of Astarte were castrati, and in her temples the custom prescribed that girls should give themselves to strangers. And the cult of Baal itself was associated with debauchery and cult prostitution.
This cult was also bloodthirsty; parents were forced to sacrifice their children. “And they built the high places for Baal to burn their sons with fire as burnt offerings to Baal.” This biblical quote makes us recall the episode of the funeral of a noble Russian from Ibn Fadlan’s “Notes”. “We burn him in the twinkling of an eye, so that he enters heaven immediately and immediately.” The Rus practiced cremation.
Baal is associated with the concept of horror, for many Baal is the demon of horror. This name has become common in many languages. I can’t say for sure, but doesn’t the Kazakh word ax – “balta” – come from Baal?
Now let's look at the second half of the word baltavar. Tavar, creature. Anastasius the Librarian reported that one of the Bulgar ambassadors who arrived in Constantinople in 869 bore the title “tabar”. The very word “tabar” is surprisingly reminiscent of the words “kabar, kavar, kabir,” etc. All these words are directly related to the Semites. There are also Avars - a group of Semitic tribes that directly captured the Black Sea region during the Invasion.
Finally, there are also Taurians (compare “tavar” and “taur”), they were described in detail on the pages of “Khazar Madness”. In this regard, a more correct answer can be given by the Byzantine historian of the 10th century Leo the Deacon, who reported on the campaigns of Prince Svyatoslav. The deacon wrote that the “Tavro-Scythians” are usually called “Rosy”. He calls Svyatoslav himself “chief of the brands,” that is, in other words, the ruler, the master of the brands. And the name Baal literally translates as “lord”, “master”! It turns out that the Russian Svyatoslav was BALTAVAR, “chief of the brands”!
Now let's look at the second bunch of names: Almush and Shilki. The name Almush brings to mind the Hungarian leader Almos (in other translations Almuts, Almush), co-ruler of the Hungarian leader Levedia. The unnamed author of the chronicle of the notary of King Bela gives two explanations for the origin of the name of the leader Almus (Almus, Almi, Almo, Almum): from the Hungarian #225;lmo s "sleepy" or Latin almus "life-giving, beneficial". Why the Latin version appeared is not difficult to guess: firstly, the chronicle was written in Latin, and secondly, the meaning of the name of the father of the ancestor of the Hungarian kings - Sleepy - turned out to be not very beautiful. Indeed, a strange name for a leader.
But maybe it’s worth looking for this name among other peoples? In fact, we find this name among... the Arabs. This name is Almuhammed, which means famous, recognized Muhammad. The name Almuhammed has dialectal variants: Almet, ALMI, Almakay, Albet, Albetkay, Alkay, Alki, ALMUSH, ALMUSH, etc. What happens, the nomadic Hungarians were Muslims? And where could Islam have appeared in the Don region in the ninth century? Perhaps from Khazaria, indeed, in those days, Muslims also appeared there. But Islam still has nothing to do with it, it’s just the name of a Semitic root, and the Muslims of that time were mainly Semitic Arabs.
The very name of the Hungarian leader is most likely two-part. AlMosh, where its first half may well be just a definite article, and the second half of the name represents the biblical name Moses. In Hebrew it sounds like this - Moshe! Thus, the Hungarian leader Almos is al-Moshe, i.e. MOSES (or otherwise, the famous, recognized Moses). No, of course, not a biblical prophet at all, there are many people named Moses, it’s just that the Hungarian most likely received this name when he converted to Judaism.
But what about the name of his senior partner, the leader Lebedius? In Hungarian - Levedi, this name is considered to be of Finno-Ugric origin. However, I could not find evidence of this. But in A.P. Novoseltsev’s “Khazar State” you can read: “So, according to Constantine Porphyrogenitus, the Hungarians were allies of the Khazars in Levedia, where they lived for three years. This most likely dates back to the 30s of the 9th century, when the Khazars needed their faithful allies, the Hungarians, who were also related to the Khazars, to roam in the steppes between the Don and the Dnieper.”
And again: “The erudite emperor names the area as the country of Levedia as the original (or known to him?) location of the Hungarians. The name is an ellised form of a local word from the Old Hungarian “Levedi”, in turn, according to Constantine, associated with the first Hungarian governor Levedi. In the Greek text, Lebediah is referred to by a term translated as “an ancient, old habitat.” This is also from Novoseltsev.
As you can see, there is also no answer to the etymology of the word “levedi”. Either Levediy received the name-nickname from the name of the area, or the area Levediy itself received the name from the name of the Hungarian leader, which is more likely.
The name Levedi is close to the Hebrew name Levi. I am far from unequivocally considering the Hungarian leaders to be Semites by origin. But Levedi could well have accepted Judaism, the religion of Khazaria. The Levites, one of the twelve tribes of Israel, were priests. It is possible that they converted the Hungarian leader to Judaism, giving him the name of their clan. Compare Levedi and Levite. Without vowels: LVD and LVT, where -d- and -t- transform into each other. It turns out that the name of the main Hungarian leader was LEVIT.
In the book “The Rus' that Was-2” I tried to unravel the mystery of the chronicle Prophetic Oleg. There were two Olegs. One is an Ugric leader, and the other is a co-ruler of Prince Igor, from the Ugric people of the Rus. Unfortunately, I was not able to completely unravel this tangle. I wrote: “The situation with Prince (voivode) Oleg is extremely confusing, finding the correct answer is becoming almost impossible. Any explanation cannot claim to be the truth. Perhaps a little later, when some new information appears, a thorough analysis of all available facts will allow us to get closer to a more or less probable picture of what Prince Oleg was like.”
Let's see what we know about the man named Oleg in The Tale of Bygone Years. The Cambridge Document, written by an unnamed Jew who fled to Byzantium, tells of a war in which Khazaria, Byzantium and Rus' took part. The action takes place during the reign of Emperor Romanus (920-944). Roman set the king of Rus' named Kh-l-gu (here I immediately draw your attention to the name of Almush’s father - Shilka, let’s compare these names without vowels: KHLG and ShLK) against the Khazars. Kh-l-gu captured the Khazar city of S-m-k-riya. In response, the Khazars attacked Greek (i.e., Byzantine) cities, and then sent a large army against the Rus under the command of Pesach. The military leader liberated the Khazar city and invaded Crimea, ravaging Greek settlements. Then Passover went to Kyiv and imposed tribute on the city. Having defeated the Rus, the Khazars forced them to oppose the Greeks. But the Greeks ultimately defeated the Rus, and Kh-l-gu, not daring to return to his homeland, went by sea to P-r-s, where he died.
Ibn-Dasta testified that the Volga Bulgars were divided into three tribes: Bersula, Eseger and Bulgars. In the book “The Rus' that Was-2” I wrote: “Bersula is definitely a tribe of Barsils from other ancient sources. Based on the similarity of names, it is quite possible to identify the Barsils with the ancient Rus.” It turns out that one of the three Bulgarian tribes turned out to be Rus. This is not surprising, since the Rus and Bulgars were closely related tribes. The Bulgars remained nomads, and the Rus, having separated from their midst and settled in the Taman region, became skilled sailors. So, Kh-l-gu did not dare to return to his homeland in Tmutarakan, to Taman and went by sea (that is, by water, and in the assumed case this is the Volga River) to P-r-s. This country could well be Volga Bulgaria, or more precisely the part of it where the Bersul-Barsils settled. Compare without vowels: PRS and BRSL.
The "Cambridge Document" was most likely based on two similar events: the Russian campaign against the Caspian Sea in 913 and the actions of the Russians against the Khazars and then Byzantium in 940-944.
According to fairy tale legend, Prince Oleg died of a snake bite in 912, while the Russian campaign took place in 913. Let me remind you that a large army of Rus, by agreement with the Khazars, was allowed down the Volga to the Caspian Sea. On its southwestern shores the Russians robbed local residents for several months. At the end of the raid, the Rus were met by the Khazar Muslims, who treacherously attacked them, wanting to take revenge for the raid on their co-religionists. The Rus were defeated, about five thousand of them broke through up the Volga and went towards Volga Bulgaria, where they were completely exterminated by the Bulgars.
However, according to AV, Oleg, who led this campaign, and his army were not killed by the Bulgars in 913, but on the contrary, the Rus defeated the Bulgars and remained to live in their lands. For Rus', Oleg “died”, having gone on a long journey to the shores of the Caspian Sea, from where he never returned. In the “Cambridge Document” the leader of the Rus is named Kh-l-gu, but Shilki, the name of the father of the Bulgarian king Almush, is quite similar to him. We should not forget that the authors of the sources were different, each interpreting the names in their own way. And without vowels, let me remind you, they are: HLG and SHLK. The sounds -g- and -k- are generally very similar. If you pronounce these two names with aspiration, it will be difficult to distinguish them from each other.
So, according to the AB hypothesis, the father of the Bulgarian king Almush turned out to be the Russian prince Oleg the Prophet? Yes, but only partially, since there was also a second Oleg, co-ruler of Prince Igor, who fought three decades later. Thus, in the guise of one chronicle hero, two real leaders of the Rus were combined.
FRANKS AND VARYAGS
We came up with the topic of the Rus and Volga Bulgaria when we considered the initial history of the Franks. What interesting things will Ibn Fadlan tell us in light of this topic? This Arab author has only one mention of the Franks, and even then not them, but only Frankish swords. Speaking about the Rus, Ibn Fadlan writes: “Each of them has an ax and a sword and a knife, and he never parted with what we just mentioned. Their swords are flat, grooved, Frankish.” That's all. But in his “Notes” we find mention of the people of al-Baranjar.
“They have many merchants who go to the land of the Turks, and bring sheep, and to the country called Visu, and bring sables and black foxes. We saw their households of one “house” numbering five thousand souls of women and men, all of whom had already converted to Islam, who are known under the name al-Baranjar.” “Al” is nothing more than a definite article, so we can safely not consider it; what remains is the mysterious people (or tribe) “Baranjar”.
But the Balanjar people are better known. According to TV, Balanjar (Belenjer) are Turkic-speaking Bulgarian tribes; they have been mentioned in Arabic sources since the mid-6th century. It is believed that they came to the North Caucasus from the Trans-Urals. In the early 630s, a state and capital of the same name were founded; they were soon conquered by the Khazar Khaganate, and part of the population moved to Volga Bulgaria.
A.P. Novoseltsev in his book “The Khazar State and Its Role in the History of Eastern Europe and the Caucasus” did not exclude the possibility that “the Basils and the Balanjars are one and the same thing.” Novoseltsev talks about the information of “Ibn Ruste and Gardizi about the Bulgar tribe (in Ibn Ruste’s text “sinf” - “type, category”, in Gardizi “gorukh” - “group”) Barsula (Darsula Gardizi). In total, these authors have three groups (types) of Bulgars: Barsula, Esgal (Askal) and Blkar, i.e. the Bulgars themselves. If we compare this with the division of the Volga Bulgars according to Ibn Fadlan, we will discover a curious thing. Ibn Fadlan, in addition to the Bulgars themselves, names the Askal tribe (why not Semites-Oskis? - A. Maksimov), but does not mention the Barsilians. But he has the al-Baranjar clan, and this perhaps confirms the identity of the Turkified Basils (Barsils) and Balanjars.”
However, not all historians consider Balanjar and Baranjar to be the same people. The fact is that it is impossible to confuse the letters -l- and -r- in the middle of a word. The writing of Arabic letters is such that many consonants are similar and differ only in diacritics. But the Arabic letters "lam" and "ra" are written differently. Based on this, historians draw this conclusion.
However, to these objections I can give an example from the same Bible. The dark cosmic force is called in the Old Testament by the word Belial, and in the New Testament as Veriar. For example, in the same Greek language such a transition from the letter -l- to the letter -p- is common.
Did Ibn Fadlan make a mistake with the transition of these letters or is this a typo? Don't think. Most likely, in the tenth century, this people, indeed, in a new place, surrounded by other peoples, began to be called a little differently. By the way, Ibn Fadlan called Almush the king of the Slavs. This means that there were also Slavs in the Volga region. There were, as mentioned above, also Russians. Perhaps, with the light hand of one of these tribes, a transformation took place with these letters. But “baranjar” is Arabic, and how could it not sound Arabic?
The Arabic language lacks the letter -в-; Arabs replace it in writing with the letter -b-. The combination -j- is again characteristic of the Arabs; among other peoples we would find the letter -g-. What happens: baranjar = warangar. However, they don’t even have the vowel -я-, instead they have the letter -a-. So: Varyangar. Doesn't remind you of anything? Yes, these are our Varangians from The Tale of Bygone Years!
But if the Rus were Ugric people, originally from Taman, then the Varangians were Scandinavians? Confusion again: Balanjars are Bulgars, and Baranjars = Varangians are Scandinavians?
Don't rush to such conclusions. I will again refer you to the book “The Rus' that Was-2”, an entire chapter of which was devoted to the problem of the Varangians. From its text, I note that “neither the Tale of Bygone Years, nor the Scandinavian sagas, nor European and other chronicles provide any sufficient grounds to assert that the Varangians in Russian chronicles are Scandinavians.”
But Ibn Fadlan describes the funeral ritual of a noble Russian. Let me remind you that he was burned in the ship. And this, as you know, is a real Viking custom. Traditional history says so. However, this custom is not originally ancient for the Scandinavians! It appeared in the area of Swedish Uppland (the territory of Ruslagen - an amazing name) in the period of the 6th-8th centuries AD. e. Moreover, the ritual appeared in a ready-made, fully formed form. The area of Ruslagen is the birthplace of the first Swedish state - the kingdom of the Svei. Here the kings (the word “king” is of Semitic origin, I wrote about this in “Severe Laws”) of the Svei held tings (veche) with the people.
If the rite of cremation is not a product of local origin, then where did it come from? Let's try to look for historical places where the dead were burned in ships. But you don’t need to search, just remember the history of the Trojan (Troy again!) War. The dead soldiers were burned in ships by the Achaeans who were besieging Troy. According to AB, these are Pelasgians. Pelasgians are Semites.
Fadlan's funeral ritual is described in great detail. Here we note a few subtle details of the ritual. The dead person is first buried in a temporary grave in the clothes in which he died. An active role in the ritual is played by an old woman with two daughters, whom the Russians call the “angel of death.” Finally, another active character is the closest relative of the deceased, who sets a fire on which the ship with the deceased and his victims burns. Interesting detail: this man is naked. Different translations have different interpretations of this episode.
“Then the nearest relative of this dead man came, took a piece of wood and lit it, walked backwards towards the ship, holding a piece of wood in one hand and the other on his open backside, until he lit the wood that they had placed under the ship.” As you can see, it is difficult to guess that this man is naked. This is a translation from the book “Anthology on the History of the USSR,” published in 1937 (the author of the translation is not indicated).
“Then the closest relative of (this) dead man came up, took a piece of wood and lit it by the fire, then walked backwards, with the back of his head towards the ship, and his face (...), the lit piece of wood in one of his hands, and his other hand (lay) on the anus , (he) being naked, until he lit the piled wood (pieces of wood) that were under the ship.” And this is an excerpt from the book “Ibn Fadlan’s Journey to the Volga” translated by A.P. Kovalevsky, published in 1939. The difference, as you can see, is significant.
And here is what I. Heinman writes on this topic in his work “The Jewish Diaspora and Rus'”: “Burial in a veil or in the clothes in which a person died corresponds to the ritual of Jewish funerals... the Old Testament mentions the “angel of death” - an old woman with two daughters " Finally: “The custom of being naked at a funeral could only have arisen among the southern people; it took place among the Phoenicians, Arabs, etc., and was preserved among the Jews in the form of tearing of clothes by the relatives of the deceased.”
G. Semiradsky. Funeral of a noble Russian
And here is what the eminent historian A.G. Kuzmin writes with reference to the research of the famous Ukrainian archaeologist D.T. Berezovets, whose conclusions were ignored by Khazar scholars. “Particularly convincing is the “superposition” of the catacomb burials of Saltovsky and similar burial grounds with a description of the nature of the burials of the Rus at Ibn Ruste (late 9th - early 10th centuries). The author pointed out, in particular, that the funeral custom described by Ibn-Rust was preserved to this day among the descendants of the Alans - Ossetians" ("Khazar Sufferings"). Where did the Scandinavian Vikings come from in the North Caucasus?
N. Roerich. Overseas guests
This book has already said that the heroes of the Trojan War “inherited” enough in Europe. Let us also remember about the people of the Dan (Odin) tribe, who came out of the Azov region and passed through Pannonia to the region of Scandinavia along with the Ugric clans that joined them. The first Scandinavian kings were descendants of the Semitic Dan-Odin. This is where this burial ritual came from in Scandinavia. The chain is closed.
The Varangians turned out to be a Ugric people related to the Rus. At the beginning of this chapter, it was noted that the Frankish elite were of alien origin, most likely from the Don region. It was headed by Semites, but part of it was most likely Ugric, that is, Bulgars and Rus. So the assertions of various medieval authors that the Franks were Russians turned out to be not without foundation. And the very name of the Franks and Varangians came from the same root.
A little higher, I noted that the name of the Frankish tribe is surprisingly similar to the title of the Egyptian rulers - the pharaohs. Frank - farank - pharaoh-k. And the Varangians? Varyag - varang - varangur - pharaoh-gur. Here -gur- identifies the people of Ugric origin. Just like the Bulgars are bul-gurs, that is, otherwise, the Bulgars are “skulls (heads) - Ugric peoples.” Let me remind you that the aliens disparagingly called people from local enslaved tribes “skulls”. But the Varangs, i.e. “Pharaonic Ugricians” (can be called: “royal Ugricians”, and from history we know about the “royal Scythians,” a tribe that stood above the rest of the Scythian clans) were already at a higher level of the hierarchy among the defeated tribes . Actually, that’s why the Khazars entrusted the Varang-Rus with collecting their tribute.
But what does this have to do with the pharaohs? What is the connection between Egypt and the Varangians? But, according to the alternative version, we are not talking about Egypt. Let me remind you that the main biblical stories took place in the lands of Khazaria. The Jews, as you remember, fled from Pharaoh's troops. According to AB, we are talking about the troops of the Byzantine governor in Crimea.
From traditional history we know about the existence in that region of the Bosporan kingdom, a vassal of Rome (the Byzantines, by the way, were called Romans, Romans), destroyed by the Huns. According to AB, the Huns are Semites-Avars who broke through the Caucasus to the Black Sea region. It was they who destroyed the Bosporan kingdom, a vassal of the Byzantine pharaohs, which occupied the territory of Crimea and Taman, where, according to AB, the Ugric Rus lived. What can you call these Ugrians? Pharaoh Ugric peoples, Pharaoh Gurs, i.e. Varangs.
In this regard, the solution to the problem of the Bertin annals (German chronicles) seems completely different. Let me remind you that these annals are considered one of the main evidence of the Norman theory. In 839, an embassy from Byzantium and with it several Russians arrived to the Frankish Emperor Louis I. “Having carefully investigated the purpose of their arrival, the emperor learned that they were from the people of the Swedes” (Sveon - sueonum). But indeed, these are relatives - many of the Svei kings were descendants of Semites, Bulgars and Rus.
Baranjar (in Arabic) emerged from the original warangar. In The Tale of Bygone Years the last letter -r- is already lost (varanga), which is how the name Varangians appeared. And in Western Europe - francs. Compare again: Franks and Varangs.
Some of the readers may ask a reasonable question: didn’t the Varangi leave too many traces: both in Rus' and even in France? And the tribe of Dan-Odin even reached Scandinavia. Is this physically possible? But why does no one doubt the assertion that the Hungarians, who came from the Trans-Urals, reached Pannonia? And the Huns (on TV) supposedly came from the borders of China.
The Rus penetrated into many places on the Russian Plain. Moreover, both according to TV and AV. Only the vector of movement was different. According to traditional history, the Rus came from Scandinavia, reaching the Black Sea and beyond. And according to an alternative version of history - from the Azov region and further to the north and northwest. Why can’t Dan-Odin and his people physically come from the Azov region to Scandinavia, but the Russians can take the opposite route (according to TV)?
How did the Russians (on TV) manage to seize power throughout the entire territory of future Rus', if they did not stand out in any way culturally and militarily compared to the local tribes? But according to AB, the same Semites of Dan, with their iron weapons, were clearly stronger and more developed than the local tribes, who had just begun to move from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age.
Loading...
