Icon - from the Greek word "image", the image of Jesus Christ, the Blessed Virgin and all the Saints.

But icon-painting couldn't begin from the times of Christ just because Christianity was the branch of Judaism to which an icon hasn't been peculiar.

Only in VI century first icons appeared in Byzantium. In the end of VII century (Nicene Council II, 783 - 787) icons became obligatory attributes of the Christian cult in Europe. One of the icons worshippers was Saint John Damascin; it seems he was a Turki by birth. He lived in VIII century and had a name Mansur. In 787 the Oecumenical Council proclaimed him the "herald of the truth".

First icons were marked in church everyday life in IV century in Armenia, the Caucasian Albania and Iberia.

It is indicative that an icon is obligatory for the northern branch of Buddhism based, as we know, on Tengirchilik traditions. Buddha is depicted with his hand risen in a gesture of pacification: thumb and third finger are put together.

In Tengirchilik it is called the gesture of two fingers. It was borrowed and retained by the Armenian Church and other Churches which were the first to borrow spiritual traditions of the Turki.

For the Turki the cult of sacred images is connected with rock paintings. According to remained legends they helped man to make up his mind to communicate with God, to reach Clarification.

Ancient "rack" tradition of combining a prayer and an image was expressed in two ancient Turkic words: aj- (speak) and koni (truly). The word koni was often used in religious terminology of the ancient Turki: for example, koni kertu nom (true teaching).

Borrowing the ceremony of icons worshipping from Tengirchilik, the Christians, which is seen from their explanation (!), accepted only external part, they didn't understand the hidden essence of an icon (hence are iconoclastic distempers!). As a result the Trukic precept "speak the truth" or "open your soul" has turned into a poor Greek "image".

The word "icon" sounds the same perhaps in all European languages (aj- koni ~ aiconi ~ icon ~ eikon).

Heirmos - in Christianity - liturgical singing of the morning canon connecting the songs from the Holy Scripture and the troparions. The title is deemed to be connected therewith: from the Greek word heirmos - "interlacement". Here, the same as in the case with an icon, we can see an example of external borrowing.

Heirmons appeared among the Byzantine hymns not earlier than VII century. The word "heirmos" has the Turkic root jir (song) + -maz affix; literally it means "our songs".

It is evident that as a result of the phonetic adaptation Turkic "yurmaz" has turned into the Greek "heirmos" (jir-maz ~ irmaz ~ irmoz ~ heirmos).

As we know, singing is an obligatory element of the Turkic spiritual culture, especially for the tradition of Tengirchilik. It was marked by the Pope Gregory the Great who has borrowed that ceremony from the Turkic followers of Tengirchilik: hence is Gregorian singing in the Catholic Church.

Origin of the word "heirmos" from the "Turkic" song is also confirmed by the fact that the sacred book "Heirmology" contains prayers designed only for singing. One of the first authors of the heirmoses was Saint John Damaskin (Mansur).

Censer (pronounced as "kadilo in Russian") - a vessel for incense during a Christian service. In antiquity it had the form of a cup fixed on a wooden handle; it was called catsia. (Thus an incensory of the Russian Old Believers is still made). Today a censer is fixed with a chain, they put burning coal into it and pour incense onto it. According to ancient beliefs incense frightens the evil spirits away.

The name "catsia" goes back to the complex word qa cajti (qa cajti ~ cachaiti ~ catsaiti ~ catsai ~ catsia) which consists of two ancient Turkic words qa (vessel) and cajti (relic).

The translation of that word - "vessel with a relic" - reflects not only the purpose of the catsia, but also devout attitude to incense placed in it.

Kamelaukion - in Christianity - headdress of the clergy. In IX century that was the name of the emperors' wreaths and the Pope's tiara. The clergy wear a kamelaukion since XV century.

Origin of the word is connected with the Greek word kamelos (camel). The name is supposed to go back to the name of the hat made of camel-hair (kamelos). An unconvincing version. How is a camel connected with emperor's wreath and Pope's tiara?

Another borrowing from Tengirchilik is evident. The name of the headdress goes back to qam jelvi, consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qam (clergyman) and jelvi (religious rite).

The scenes of the religious rite remained in rock paintings of Altai. It is known that a Turkic clergyman would always wear headdress of that king during a religious rite. The Christians didn't have a similar headdress.

Having accepted it in their ceremonies, the Christians began to search for an explanation to an unknown title. Apart from an awkward Greek "camel" nothing was suggested.

Klobuk - headdress of the monks consisting of a kamelaukion and a crepe. Modern form is taken by the Russian Church from the Greeks in XVII century. Earlier that cover was made not of the light material but of thick one. It was the copy of a bashlyk for the monks in IV century.

No doubt that a klobuk is of the Turkic origin. The Christians themselves derive it from the Turkic word "cap" - a hat. However, that is not correct. The basis for that name is the expression qul ba? consisting of two ancient Turkic words: qul ("God's slave") and ba? ("coverlet"). In other words, "coverlet of God's slave".

The name also witnesses of the form of the klobuk and expresses its symbolic meaning.

Bell - Christians connect its appearance with the name of the bishop Paulinius (353 - 431); they say the look of the wildflowers suggested the idea to him. But that is more than fondly. Due to ignorance the Latin name of the bell (campana) (pronounced as "colocol" in Russian) is explained by the name of the province where they started to found them.

The documents witness of absolutely other things. In Italy bells appeared in the time of Pope Sabinian, near the year 604, in France - in the year 550. The Greeks weren't acquainted with bells until IX century. Parishioners were called there by the beater (wooden board) or the riveter (iron strip).

Tibet is the motherland of the bells; they were invented by Abloma, the son of Aboteni and his fourth wife Dzhamir Gimbare. That is witnessed by the legends of the East which were created before Common Era.

Armenians were the first to borrow the tradition to gather the parishioners with the bells from the Turki. In Echmiadzine - the spiritual center of the Armenian Apostolic Church - the ancient bell from Tibet is kept; it was presented by the Turki, apparently.

It isn't by accident that the Russian word colocol, the German word Glock and the French word cloche have the same root. But an explanation according to which it is formed by the Latin word clocca isn't suitable. Here a Latin adaptation of the foreign word is evident - the word which replaced the former campana.

The name is taken from the expression qalik qol-, it consists of two ancient Turkic words: qalik (cky, heavens) and qol- (ask, beg). Translation "beg the heavens" points to the purpose of the bell (qalik qol ~ calyccol ~ calykol ~ colocol (bell)).

These are the right words, indeed: "A bell is mysteriously connected with holy forces and human souls; it awakens the earth and the sky".

However, another interpretation of that word is also possible and it is also connected with the Turkic language: qol (meaning "hand") and oqi- (to call), "to call with a hand".

The history of Italian word "campana" also looks otherwise - it has nothing to do with Italian provinces. The name was made of two ancient Turkic words: cam (clergyman) and pan (board), which means "clergyman's board". That expresses the purpose of the beater (campana ~ campan ~ cam pan).

Furthermore, it explains why the word campana was replaced by the word clocca when real bells appeared.

And that's not all. In the Church Rules, apart form the word "campana" the word "heavy" is used; it is considered to be the translation of the Greek word "baraya" ("heavy"). It is deemed that big bells were called thus due to their strong sound.

Here is an obvious combination of two ancient Turkic words: bar- (disappear) and aja? (sin) (bar- aja? ~ barayag ~ baraya). The translation "sin, disappear" expresses the symbolic essence of the ring when the bells sound on the days of glorious events in churches. On Easter, for instance.

In the northern branch of Buddhism there is a special ceremony of destruction of sins. That ceremony is performed near the entrance to the cloister.

By the way, a sleight-bell is the attribute of the Buddhist altar; it is the symbol of the highest wisdom.

Kondak - genre of Byzantine church poetry. The word is considered to go back to the Greek word kontakion - "brief".

In the Christian Church Roman Sweet-Singer was the creator of the kondaks; born in Syria, he lived in V - VI centuries. However, the earliest pieces are ascribed to Methodius, the bishop from Lykia, who died in 311.

Kondak as a genre of church creativity rose due to the Turki in the Western world. It is witnessed by Syrian sources of VI century. That allows to suppose that the term "kondak", as well as "heirmos", is of the Turkic origin. It comes from the ancient Turkic word kondgar- (to direct to the right way). The combination kondgar- + -k affix means "direction to the right way". That's why the kondaks state the contest of a holiday or life of the saint!

Such interpretation is more appropriate as compared with the Greek "brief" (kondgar ~ kondgark ~ kondark ~ kondak ~ kontakion).

In Russia singing manuscripts of XI - XIV centuries included a collection of kondaks and were called "kondakar". That phonetic adaptation is closer to the Turkic origin than the Greek (kondgark ~ kondgark ~ kondagark ~ kondakar).

Kondakar writing hasn't been enciphered, unfortunately. And the reason of the failure lies in ignorance of the Turkic traditions. Europe isn't willing to see that kondakar writing has Turkic roots.

Koukul - head cover of the monks. As against a klobuk it covers the head and falls onto both shoulders, breast and back and it is all covered with images of the holy equilateral crosses. A koukul is the sign of kindness, reminding a monk of placability and infantile simplicity.

No doubt that a koukul, as well as a klobuk, is of the Turkic origin, the word consists of two words: ku (to guard) and qul ("God's slave"). The translation "to guard God's slave" witnesses of the direct purpose of a kloubuk and expresses its symbolical essence.

Labarum - the name of the flag with a cross which was approved by the emperor Constantine. Origin of the word "labarum" is deemed to be unknown.

The cult of the cross came to Europe together with the Turkic Kipchaks. An equilateral cross is the symbol of Tengri.

Byzantium, borrowing the ceremonies of worshipping the Heavenly God and adopting Christianity to them, also imitated the cult of the cross. That's why in IV century an equilateral cross appeared on the flags of Constantine.

"Labarum" is an evident adaptation of the Turkic expression ala barim (ala barim ~ alabarym ~ alabarum ~ labarum). In its stem there are the words ala (meaning "evil thoughts", "intrigues") and barim (perdition), formed by combination if the verb bar- (to disappear, to die) + -im affix.

The translation of that expression - "death of evil thoughts" - reflects the situation after which little-known Greek Constantine became the great emperor. Having the Turkic army behind, it wasn't difficult to do that.

Monastery - communities of the monks or the nuns.

First western monasteries appeared one thousand years after the Buddhist ones, in III - IV centuries. Those were the settlements of the hermits in Egypt and they looked like fortresses. But only in the middle of V century, according to the rules of Oecumenical Council IV (year 451) the monks were reckoned among the Christians and put into the jurisdiction of the diocesan eparch.

This fact means that the idea of monkery couldn't appear in the Christian society.

But the official version derives the word "monastery" from the Greek word "monos" (one), hence is monasterion (hermit's cell). But that fails to be in accordance with the history of the monasteries.

Another lame Greek "adaptation" is evident! The ancient Turki had the prayer manastar ?irz-a ("forgive my sins"). That formula came from Sanskrit. The first word manastar deserves special attention. It consists of two words: manasa (soul) and tar (to save), which is translated as "save the soul".

The Turki used to read that short prayer in the monasteries or near the sacred places, apparently. It expresses the feelings of those having searched for salvation from worldly nasty in the monasteries.

Nimbus - image of shining around a head (the symbol of sanctity). Its origin hasn't been determined.

In Europe the word "nimbus" is usually derived from the Latin word nimbus (cloud). In the meantime a nimbus is one of the most ancient symbols of the Eastern culture meaning the outflow of vital energy, wisdom, shining of sanctity. Nimbuses were of different shapes and color.

The term is an evident adaptation of the ancient Turkic expression ja? im ba (ja? im ba ~ janimba ~ nimba ~ nimbus) consisting of three words: ja? (shine), im (sign) and ba- (to tie up).

The translation is clear - "surround with the sign of the light", "make it bright". It is a precept for icon-painters.

Orarion - long ribbon which a Christian clergyman wears on his shoulders.

The historians of the Church haven't determined when an orarion had become the vestments of the clergy. Their views in relation to origin of the word "orarion" are also different.

According to a bad tradition the word "orarion" is deemed to be Greek. Some insist on the Greek words "to see", "to observe". Others derive it form the words "keeping safe", "care" meaning that people having an orarion care for the souls of the believers. There is also the Latin version - orarium from orare (to pray).

Such discrepancy is explicable. That is a Turkic word, in its stem there are the words or- ari- consisting of or- (to tie, to braid) and ari (to clear) (or- ari- ~ orary ~ orari ~ orarion).

In the expression or- ari- special attention should be focused on the word ari-. In ancient Turkic religious texts the word ari- means "to clear of the sins". Here is a quotation: "jazuqu? ari?a mujan bul?a s?n" ("your sins will be erased and you will find justice").

Thus the translation of the word "orarion" from ancient Turkic language expresses the symbolic essence of the worn vestments. The slightest reserve is absent here.

Putting an orarion on the clergy puts its ends down and having read a prayer he ties an orarion round himself showing his mental purity. That is the tradition of Tengirchilik.

Pagan - polytheism adherent, an idolater.

The word "pagan" (pronounced as "yazychnik" in Russian) has an evident ancient Turkic stem jaz- (to sin). The combination jaz- + igci affix is translated as "sinner". (jaz- + igci ~ yazygchi ~ yazychig ~ yazychnik (pagan)).

Another version of etymology of that word is also possible: the Turkic stem jazinc (sin) +nik, the Russian affix (jazinc + -nik ~ yazynchnik ~ yazychnik (pagan)). But that is less likely.

Thus one could say that the Russian word "pagan" is a borrowing of the Turkic word "sinner".

As we can see, the criminalists have a lot to do in relation to historical investigations. Their methods are suitable here. And we have taken only one area of the "crimes" - religious crimes… Where has the Turkic cultural wealth disappeared? That question doesn't seem that strange as it was before.

Bur the religious history wasn't over with "lost" words; it is to be continued.

Splits and Splitters

By the end of the first thousand years the lands of Europe were split into two hostile parts - Rome and Constantinople came to hate each other. The reasons for their secret and open hostility were old.

Firstly, there were economic reasons. Byzantine has been successfully communicating with the Turki for a long time: the famous Silk Route had its final point in Byzantium crossing Desht-I-Kipchak. The route from the Varangians to the Greeks also led to Byzantium through Desht-I-Kipchak. Successful trade with eastern neighbors strengthened the positions of the Greeks in their confrontation with Rome. Thus Rome was seeking for the changes being advantageous for it.

Second reason of confrontation between Rome and Constantinople was not less important - religious controversies. They formed the basis of the whole political life of Europe: "Who's got power has also got belief". These words were the motto. World domination was in question - pretensions of two powers who were only hiding their wishes behind the theological disputes: not God but the golden calf inspired the rulers.

Having accepted Christianity in IV century both Rome and Constantinople turned into the masters from the slaves and they were ready for anything to purify their slavish past after Attila's death. The Greek emperors were the first who understood how to do that - using religion which was accepted by force by both countries and which it was very important to bring under their control.

Religion was the only thing which pointed them to the past.

In the Central and Western Europe the Romans succeeded having called many Kipchaks on their side. The Eastern Europe remained under the Greeks' control who were skillfully balancing between Rome and steppe inhabitants. And since in Europe political pressure was performed through the Church, the rulers of two hostile countries turned their looks to it hoping to have an impact on their enemies and their neighbors, to rise through it and to create their future and the past. Christianity was becoming a political instrument to an increasing extent. Just a political instrument.

Up to IX century temporal power in Rome had the affairs of the papacy under its control - church innovations, dogmas and rules were determined, as a rule, by temporal politicians to whom the Church used to serve.

And that was explicable. After Attila's glorious victories the Western empire couldn't reinstate itself for a long while - it was attacked by the "barbarians" and numerous "barbarian kingdoms" which appeared in Europe.

Only in the year 591, having buried the hatchet, Roman authorities managed to have a break. And the Church which center was in Byzantine those days, started to act, - Pope was obliged to agree his actions with the Ecumenical Patriarchy but he didn't always do it.

In VII - VIII centuries the Roma Church, having got a benediction of the Pope Gregory the Great, started a secret excellent ideological aggression to the north, to the Turki, where Tengirchilik was dominating (or "Heteroousian" religion, according to Christian terminology). Thousands and thousands of people were taken prisoners by Rome. And they didn't even know it!

Pope started a dialogue with the king of Spain, found many things in common with martial Brunghilda - the queen of Austrasia, he has become "the boy next door" in the southern lands of the British Isles. The whole Western Europe felt peacemaking activity of Rome - everybody was tired of the wars.

Skillfully using established relations, not making them visible, Pope was getting power turning papacy into an active power institution… Secret army, court, finances… And the main weapon was a word (ideology).

Pope Gregory the Great intended to create a state over the states… The Western Church was secretly and vigorously building it for three hundred years. Just when everything was ready, Pope Nicolas I (858 - 867) declared about the independent Roman Church. That was a very heavy stroke for the prestige of Byzantium. Hard-won independence! It couldn't be neglected; it couldn't be disrespected.

In Byzantium, since the emperor Constantine, the Church was behind the emperor's back relying on his strength and power. It was resting on the laurels. Its dependence was revealed in everything, it avoided active politics. Its power was quiet.

Struggling for leadership Rome has chosen the most difficult but the most profitable way: it relied only on itself. Gradually strengthening its power, its finances and at the same time making the canon of Tengirchilik simpler, it was forming its ceremonies and its service. In other words, it was looking for its face, its identity. That was the only way to get the church leadership having deprived Byzantium of it and to become the master of Europe again.

In the Western Church they easily rejected old ceremonies and invented new ones which were closer to the Europeans in spiritual sense. And although the image of the Turkic Heavenly God was still present in its pantheon… it wasn't in the foreground any more. It was rather a background for Christ, Mary and different saints. Religion was moving far from its divine essence. Its external, ceremonial part prevailed in the innovations of Rome.

However, it should have happened that way: otherwise papacy wouldn't have got its face and the right for its own church policy which couldn't be neglected. In the Middle Ages special attention was focused on the ceremonial part. The paradox was that external pomposity led the people away from God. Rome, struggling for power, was growing poor in spiritual sense: wealth and luxury were killing it and calling for the congregations of the dissidents.

Constantinople was loosing one position after another to Rome - the Greek policy was even not conservative but numb. Greek rulers were quietly freeloading on religion being like a bear in the lair who lives in winter due to fat accumulated in summer. However in history it couldn't have lasted for a long time - ideas also grow old. Life, taking its idleness and conservatism into consideration, won't stand stagnation; otherwise it turns into a slough.

Byzantium was doomed. Sooner or later the country was to fall into that infamous slough: its wealth was fully dependent on Desht-I-Kipchak. It couldn't have neglected the Turki. That's why the Greeks stood a little bit to the east for the West and a little bit to the west for the East.

Of course there were certain innovations in the Greek Church as well, but they were inconsequent, unreasoned (aniconism, for example). Constantinople was forced to show restraint, laudable conservatism which finally led Europe to division of the single Christian Church into Byzantine and Roman Churches. It happened on July 16th, 1054, when the deed of mutual excommunication was signed.

East and West declared to the world that they have different world outlooks. That grand event was the final point of the policy which was followed by both sides this or that way since IV century - from the moment settlement of the Turki in Europe and acceptance of Christianity in the colonies of the Roman Empire and in Rome itself as well (As a matter of fact, Christianity in its modern (!) sense was accepted by Europe only by XIII century. The last pagan countries disappeared, canon still being in force without any material alterations was formed in general and accepted. Although some differences (significant and insignificant) remained in the current Churches until now.).

The first big conflict inside the Church arose. Unfortunately it was not the only one for Europe: church and political controversies have always been forming a certain diplomatic background filled by the mutual accusations of heresy. There was a feeling that each European Church had a certain divine truth to determine what went right and what went wrong. Pope Gelacius I, for example, at the Council in Rome solemnly proclaimed himself "Christ's deputy on the Earth" on May 13th, 495. Just like that. The churchmen retained the right to call heresy anything they liked. Wars, secret murders, public executions were justified by the struggle against heresy… The policy was dirty and it was far from being ecclesiastic! Stench was over Europe.

For example, what was the meaning of the church find which was called "inquisition" later? Or what have the Councils and church courts always been urging to?.. Much has been written about them, but it was all one-sided. For the sake of Rome or Byzantium. It was nowhere determined what actually was called heresy.

Church ideologists skillfully created the opinions of millions of people; people were forced to consider that there was the enemy of Christ against whom pious Church was struggling. The enemy was deemed to act against the Church and against "Christ's deputy on the Earth", i.e. against living God… Everything was mixed up and called the unknown (Turkic!) word "heresy".

Brushwood was not the source of the fires of the inquisition.

Those were the Kipchaks who, having been brought up with other spiritual traditions, were burning in the fires being sure that Christ wasn't a god; they were tortured and tormented; they were forced to give up their belief in Heavenly God - Tebgri; churchmen were destroying the Turkic divine literature having translated it into their languages and using the abstract word "heresy" as a cover… Thus the Turki were being made disaccustomed to their culture and history for centuries. And it seems they were made so.

Generally speaking, Rome was preparing the massacre of St. Bartholomew many centuries before the year 1572 killing everyone not agreeing with its spiritual policy. Hands of certain Roman and Byzantine hypocrites are covered with blood.

Only in France over 30 thousand of people were killed during that "night" (by the way, it lasted for several days), those people were the enemies of the Roman Christianity; of course the Genevans didn't recognize their Tengirchilik roots, apparently - time was the reason - but they didn't loose their hatred to Rome passing the dislike to Catholicism across the generations. Any European could hardly explain the reasons of his dislike of the Catholics - half of Europe simply always hated them. No explanations were necessary.

Repressions, falsifications, blackmail, threatening were the policy of the Church. Before the massacre of St. Bartholomew and after it as well… It was loosing in the open dialogue with its opponents thus an absurd rule appeared in Christianity - "to believe without thinking". The Christians were prohibited to discuss the dogmas of belief.

…The Catholics made more than 60 alterations of the Tengirchilik canon for the sake of their policy. Sometimes "novelty" was taken from Mitraism - the religion being the competitor of Christianity; some time it was widespread in the Roman Empire.

But certain innovations weren't recognized at one stroke even by the Roman Church. For example origin of the Holy Spirit, the dogma appeared in the end of VII century as an addition to those accepted in IV century. At first it was recognized by the Spaniards and in 1009 it was accepted by Rome.

This and other examples (and there are many of them!) show that the history of the Great Steppe has been forgotten in Italy, France, Spain, England - it was wiped out by the inquisitors. But it's not dead! It has been living all these centuries with Attila's descendants passing from generation to generation. It is neglected but it hasn't been forgotten.

Division of the Church is the division of the fields of supremacy. And nothing more. And this division was formed by XI - XII centuries because the Kipchaks have let it happen: they were desperately resisting the Fate and thus made their inevitable end nearer - their endless brawls were to exhaust the great nation. They, as though being childish, wanted to prove something to somebody. And generosity is disastrous in the world of adults; it requires a very high price.

In VI century, for example, the Kipchaks threw down a challenge to the rest of Europe. Religious bigots of Rome organized the massacre of the Jews and their proscription from Palestine: Rome was strengthening its positions through purification of Christianity from Judaism on which the Greeks insisted. And they partly succeeded in it.

It should be mentioned that Christianity didn't stand the Jewish nation in good stead. It roughly intruded into the spiritual life of the Jews having invented the one they didn't have - Christ!.. He was supposed to be God's son.

But there is no Father God in Judaism. Thus a son couldn't appear. And that is clear from the original text of the Old Testament. The Jews learnt that history (or the details of the life of the Jew who was called Jesus Christ in II century, to put it more preciously) much later (Desire to connect that event with Joseph Flabius (37 - 100), the ancient Jewish historian who has taken the side of Rome in the Jewish War, is not in compliance, for example, with Apocalypse. Even with its edited (!) version. Interferences in the texts by ancient authors were traditional for the Christian clergy - they corrected everything and everybody. Thus "editing" of the translations of the Old Testament and other holy books has been practiced since IX century . So what can be said about Joseph Flabius.). Not before the Oecumenical Council II of the year 381 at which the Gospels - the New Testament were approved. Before that there were more than a hundred of variants of his life contradicting with each other - the so-called Apocrypha.

It turns out the history about Christ is a Greek invention. And not a Jewish one.

The first Christian communities appeared, as we know, on the territory of the Minor Asia (Byzantium!) and not in Palestine. And those communities didn't break with Judaism. Isn't it indicative - almost all the "sacred" texts of the first Christians were written in the Greek language and with the Greek letters?..

In VI century Rome started a campaign against Palestine in order not to arrange theological disputes there but to beat the Jews to spite Byzantium.

But in politics, as well as in chess, one should make a move after the opponent. The Greeks kept silent cowardly; the Kipchaks replied for them: they gave a shelter to the Jewish nation beaten without being guilty, to spite Rome but to their own detriment. Desht-I-Kipchak gave a hand to the weak showing that the Turki were following the commandment "The kind are blessed". Jewish quarters with the synagogues appeared in the steppe settlements in VI century. The Jews were granted the rights of the citizens and not the slaves and they were allowed to take part in the life of Desht-I-Kipchak apart from military service which was impossible due to their physical state and, besides, they couldn't follow their Moses' laws there.

Neither nation was as free as the Jews. In Khazaria, for example, the Jews were trading. They communicated with their fellows hiding from the Roman legionaries in Spain. In a word, the Turki fully trusted them and suffered for that reason.

Their protection was the reason of discussion of "Judaisation" of the Khazar chaganat and, consequently, of isolation of Desht-I-Kipchak itself as "Jewish" disease bearer. Though no traces of "Judaisation" were ever found by the archeologists. But the opinion about it is stable.

Sometimes the interest of the Khazars to the Jewish belief is mentioned in historical works of that time, but they are read only in the context of acceptance of the outcast Jews by the Turki - one thing has no sense without the other. And besides, one should remember that the words "Christian" and "Jews" were the synonyms for the Turki.

Khazar chagan has become interested in Christianity by example of the ruler of the Caucasian Albania, which is quiet possible: there was the Caucasian patriarchal throne in Derbent… Anyway, the chronicles never mention Judaism of the Turki while they mention Christianity (The example of the Karaites is convincing. They are Jewish but not the Jews.).

The story about the choice of belief by the chagan is another falsification. It is not by accident that the legend having the same plot but with the "positive" end was written by the same hand for Russian Kiev.

… Of course the neighborhood of two free nations - the Kipchaks and the Jews - led to a mutual profit. The Jews showed themselves as good craftsmen and traders. The Kipchaks guarded their settlements as their own ones. It is important to mention that the Turki lived in peace with their neighbors and didn't intend to suppress their culture or to appropriate it. But they loved foreign women.

Without any exaggeration, that was only the magnanimity of the Kipchaks that saved the Jews from inevitable death to which they were doomed by the Europeans. Unfortunately, that has also been forgotten, although there are many Jews having Turkic appearance nowadays - blue-eyed and broad-faced. The "traces" of community of two nations… And even those blue-eyed Jews represent their saviors as the scoundrels.

Historians (including the Jewish ones) sooner or later will have to take the Great steppe country from the strong paws of oblivion - that is our common Motherland; they will have to investigate the cobwebs of intrigues and conjectures forming a material part of the history.

Byzantine, Roman, Russian historiographs have erased Desht-I-Kipchak from the map. As though there were no Kipchaks who gave the belief in Heavenly God to Europe.

However, the Chinese have also done the same; they were conquered by the Turki earlier than the Europeans. The time came and the Chinese rose their heads. They started their politics playing with honesty and trustfulness of the Turki. Their motto was simple: "Who wants to rule over the Firmament should extirpate punishment (i.e. weapons) and who wants to subdue his enemies by force holds the virtue away".

That Chinese wisdom is related to the Christian "love for the nearest"… Such words led to disorder in the Turkic society, deprived the people of their physical power which nobody could resist earlier. The Chinese skillfully set the Turkic rulers on to fight; they were the first who hit upon the idea to fight with the enemy with his own hands. The microbe of the discord, like rust, has become the part of the Turkic society since then; it was absorbed with mother milk. And it was all because they believed the foreign words.

A lot of eastern lands of Desht-I-Kipchak became the part of the Chinese Empire without a fight. On those lands the Turki lived - those Turki who were willing to live under the Chinese emperor… They "loved their nearest", put the weapons away in order "not to make the virtues far". And the border between China was moved far to the north from the Great Wall. The Chinese made their speeches and acted; the Turki just sat and listened.

Free people of the Steppe forgot that Tengri-Khan had made the Turkic nation free and had given the face and the vast Steppe to it… Those who believed in foreign words lost everything for they believed to a foreign God.

To tell the truth, the chagan of the eastern Turki - Kutlug - retook the lands appropriated by the Chinese. That was a happy time when Kutlug warriors were recognized by other chagans. Order was set in Desht-I-Kipchak for several years. But after Kutlug (also known as Elterish - the uniting chagan) fratricide came back to the Steppe… And everything started over again.

Should one be surprised that since VIII century Byzantium was trying to step back from the weakening ally. But Byzantine emperor was nothing without Turkic support: having started acting by himself he fell - provincial nobility threw him down and Esaurian (Syrian) dynasty came to power in Tsargrad.

New Byzantine emperors declared aniconism (Aniconism - religious tendency in Byzantium in VII - IX centuries which rejected icons worshipping basing on the commandments from the Old Testament. In the course of aniconism thousands of monuments of the spiritual art which were created mostly by the Turkic craftsmen or according to the traditions of Tengirchilik were destroyed.

). Thus they were strengthening their positions having started the changes in the Church alienating the Turki from it. Declaring the turning out of the Turkic icons, the authorities didn't want a breakup but gradual submission of Desht-I-Kipchak : in IX century the Greeks laid down conditions for the first time.

And they succeeded in it.

The shadow of the clouds from Constantinople covered the Eastern Europe. Presence of the Jews in Desht-I-Kipchak made it darker - isolation of the Kipchaks was going on. Everything was for Rome's sake that time; again, as a hundred years ago, it was appearing in the world scene reviving the former empire: total submission of Europe through the Christian Church was a matter of time. Byzantine churchmen realized their defeat and couldn't resist to it.

Meanwhile the Turki, having been involved into a feud by the Chinese and the Europeans, were in a desperate situation: their former might had disappeared completely. They should have protected themselves against exterior enemies and they were fighting only with internal ones - a brother was killing a brother. That's why, having seized the right moment, the Varangians easily won the Ukraine chaganat from "ill" Desht-I-Kipchak. That's why the "Russians" inexperienced in steppe fighting started a campaign against the rulers of pallid Khazaria.

"There are no bonds more sacred than fraternity". A microbe of the discord is a judgment: the Most High deprived the steppe nation of mind.

Unfortunately, many pages of Desht-I-Kipchak history are to remain blank - those events cannot be restored. The documents have been destroyed. Only fragments remained in the archives - information about the Greeks who were committing genocide against the Kipchaks of the Great Bulgaria chaganat in VIII - IX centuries. They "registered" their Kipchak servants as the Greeks; they added the boundary lands of the Bulgarians to them.

There are archival evidences about how the conceited descendants of Gomer burnt spiritual literature apart form the icons, frescos and statuettes. The storages of the "ancient Bulgarian books". Where can one fond the traces of the rich libraries with which Europe was bringing up?.. And they threw thousands of books written in the runes into the fires! The fact which isn't refuted even by "Christianity" encyclopedia; for instance, it is reported there that in XIX century the Greeks burnt one of the last libraries of the "ancient Bulgarian" books… That's where the Turkic heritage has disappeared

In our opinion, these were the Greeks who called the Kipchak language "ancient Bulgarian" during the years of another genocide and, having included a couple of dozens of Slavic words in it, proclaimed it "Church Slavonic". They, as well as the Romans, were physically destroying the alien clergy which used to follow the traditions of Tengirchilik… Persecution was violent - it was performed by the great masters in black robes.

Disembodied information remained in the archives just by accident… that's why the Great Steppe is called the crowd of the "wild nomads" and "pagan Tatars". As though nothing else about it remained.

The ancient Turki worshipped God solemnly, turning to Him with a pure soul. And with divine singing. That's why the Turkic spiritual spring became popular at first among the Armenian, Albanian, Iberian bishops and later among the Byzantine, Roman and other ones: they saw the new, true belief there. And they accepted its holiness.

Europeans heard the prayers in the name of heavenly God in the Great Steppe. They took the ceremonies of worshipping from the Great Steppe… So many things have been forgotten!

As a matter of fact, the Turkic culture was going into oblivion in different ways in different places - but everywhere is was meanly and doubly. Pope Gregory the Great (590 - 604 years of papacy) was the first who became accustomed to cutting its roots in the Western Europe. The personification of the craftiness.

Gregory is from a noble senatorial family, he had a good legal education and excellent administrative skills. After his father's death he inherited an untold wealth which he fully invested in reconstruction of the monasteries which were languishing in poverty. He lured the Black Monks and they became his secret and reliable support in the state - his ears and eyes. Gregory didn't spare the funds for strengthening of his power - economic and political issues troubled the Pope as well as theological ones.

In 592, having buried the hatchet with the Kipchaks who settled in the north of the Apennines Peninsula (Langobards, the ancestors of the modern Milaneses) he declared papacy the center of the Turkic spiritual culture in Europe (Although it hasn't been proved that the Langobards were the Turki, no one has disproved that after the Great Nations Migration the Central Europe was settled by the Turki; they were the majority of the population. Judging be the notes of Paul Barnefridus (VIII century) the Langobards came form the East. As well as the Goths, Izigoths, Hepids, Huns and Terings they spoke one language and were different form each other only in appearance. It is notable that one of the earliest literary monuments of that "nation" known as "Skeireins" is dated back to V century. As well as remained Goths' runic monuments, it hasn't been read by the experts. All those texts can be read by the Turkologists - the experts in ancient Turkic runic writing. And that reveals a lot! As well as the fact that all the nations worshipped only Heavenly God not recognizing Christ - the Christians called them Heteroousians. It is clear that traditions which were borrowed by the Romans from them are of the Turkic origin - at least they had no differences with the Turki. In part that is confirmed by other medieval authors alluding to cognation of the Langobards and the ancient Bulgarians. It seems the Langobards is one of the Kipchak uluses which was looking for its face in endless wars waged in Europe after Attila's death. ). Pope started an intricate game of the "learned ignorance" - Rome turned into a humble child who has declared his desire to grasp the divine truth.

They sent a legion of the Pope's agents to the Turki, basically formed of the Black Monks. They penetrated into the Turkic temples - to the relics! - without any difficulties because Pope Gregory has been calling himself "the bishop of the Langobards but not the Romans" since 591. Did he mean the Turki?! He also called himself "the servant of God's servants"… How could an ambitious Kipchak stand that? He - being a "God's servant" - found the Pope as his servant. But that wasn't all.

Gregory the Great, having come to the Turki, bowed down to them and humbly tied cape worn by the slaves over his Pope's clothes. "Here I Am, the servant of God's servants!..." - he introduced himself. The Kipchaks believed that sly dog.

Black Monks were sent to the Turki not by accident. It seems they were the Turki having taken the side of Rome, they knew the language and the customs of the Great Steppe and didn't suspect that vile part chosen by the Pope for them.

And the part was simple - to grow accustomed, to take root, to win the sympathy. In other words, to become their own people. But at that they had to implicitly spread distemper, to judge old ceremonies, to suggest new ones and to play with the national piety… In a word, to stir up.

Pope Gregory counted everything correctly: speaking about God's son the Monks softyl-softly "imposed" his cult. Sooner or later, Pope reckoned, the Kipchaks would get accustomed to Christ and to Rome as well… Since they are friends and brothers.

Confidence of relationship was increased for the reason that the Romans were willingly getting borrowings. For example, the tradition of the church singing which the Tengirchilik followers had at all times appeared in Christianity at that time. Furthermore, they began to perform the divine service according to "Apostolic rules" of Tengirchilik which were written by Dionysus the Small for them… In the Christian Church everything was the same as with Tengirchilik, but for the sake of Christ.

The smile of humility didn't leave the Pope's face. In fact the Roman agents weren't destroying the temples - they were hiding in corners like mould.

Pope Gregory instructed the delegates in his secret message: "The nation, having lately known Christianity but being accustomed to its temples (bold provided. - M.A.) would come to them as though following a custom in order to worship the true God", i.e. Christ. Pope's host was acting near the Turkic altars without a fuss. Thus it lasted for two centuries - until the Pope Nicolas the Great.

A slave's cape has become the part of the Catholic Church everyday life since then - now it is ornamented with precious stones and golden embroidery… A rag which opened the way to the Turkic souls for the Romans.

Pope Gregory started an actual ideological aggression. An intrusion missed by the simple-minded Turki - they still don't understand anything. They were choked in the embraces of friendship. The nation was perishing not seeing the enemy's face. In diplomacy, in the intrigues the Turki are the ignoramuses - they could wage a war only in an open fight - with arms and on a horse. So that wind whistles in their ears. Traditions of the Great Steppe are partly guilty in it - they didn't suppose meanness which was normal in the relations between the native Europeans. Rome had rich experience of the backstage fight - it could add the poison to the glass of wine even to the closest friends.

Cited above Felix Minucius wrote about the Roman art as follows: "They build altars even to unknown unheard-of deities. Thus, appropriation of the relics of all the nations led to owning their kingdoms".

As we see, the history repeated with the Turki. Pope Gregory the Great invented nothing new; he was acting according to an old reliable former which has already helped the Roman many times.

Even the form of the order of Gregory the Great (later the Roman church started to award with it its glorious heroes) was the same that of all the Turkic ones known before Attila. They took everything they could.

Oblivion of the Turkic culture in Europe continued: it wasn't officially prohibited - they just stopped mentioning it; it was forgotten by itself (The same thing is happening in modern Russia where children don't know anything about the pioneers, Lenin, Stalin who were the example for their parents. Lenin wasn't officially prohibited, they just stopped to tell children about him. And thus they don't know him.). By VIII century the policy of obtrusion of Christianity started by the Pope Gregory the Great yielded the first fruit - a lot of the Turki have taken the side of papacy, they've become its main weapon and instrument in the struggle against Tengri and the whole Turkic spiritual culture. They defeated their fellows.

Of course truthful books are to be written about the epoch of destruction of the Great Steppe. Now it is known only from the Christian historians. That victory of the Catholics is called the victory over Heteroousians knowingly ignoring the fact that the Egyptian bishop Arius had nothing to do with the Northern Europe and that the Turkic religion (monotheism!) existed eight centuries before Arius was born!

There are many facts of how the Catholics were strengthening their positions in the Northern Italy, on the continent, in the Southern England. Although, not everything was calm; there were certain communities which uncovered the craftsmen of Rome and resisted to it. These are the Turkic Bogomils whose movement was formed by X century on the territory of the Central Europe, the Turkic Qatars and the Turkic Albigences who continued the struggle for the purity of belief in Heavenly God. Qatars, for instance, returned Tengirchilik to themselves due to which they (inhabitants of modern France, Italy, Spain, Germany) were called the Khazars or the Bulgarians. But the forces were unequal.

It seems to be the "inessential" historic detail which was repeatedly mentioned even in historical novels. In medieval Europe there was a rule for the noble families - an obligatory ritual combat with a dragon. Not having defeated a dragon, a young fellow couldn't be called a knight of an aristocrat; the doors to the neighboring castles were closed for him… But what dragon did he have to defeat? What or who was meant by that mythical image?

The Turki, certainly. There were no living dragons in Europe. The image of the dragon or the serpent, as we know, was the symbol of the Turkic culture. It means a young fellow had to publicly disown his ancestors, to kill his memory. Killing of his own ancestors was meant by that ritual killing of the dragon!.. Those were really smart people in Vatican

Or another example. The Turki, being accustomed only to an open fight, considered it a shame to make a thrusting stroke with a saber or a dagger - it was deemed to be a stroke on the quiet. The Great Steppe recognized only an open slashing stroke. Even in a stalemate the Turki had to slash but not thrust: the enemy has to see the stroke according to the rules of the fight.

And that peculiarity of the Turkic psychology was marked by the Romans. They started to use swords, stilettos and hangers against the Turki in medieval towns. Thrust weapon. It had an evident advantage as compared with a saber in the fights in the narrow streets. According to the traditions of the Steppe it was also indecent to sit on a horse in front of the house; one had to get to the ground and lead a horse by the bridle. In the premises the Turki was forbidden to draw his arms. Everything was taken by the Romans into consideration.

Europe wasn't about to combat fairly… A saber lost to a sword. The Europeans explained the victory of their arms by the fact that a sword copied the Latin cross in its shape. As though that symbolized the victory of Christ.

There were the crusades in the European history which also were actually regarded otherwise as compared with the "Roman" version (that is the subject for a new book on modern history)… Only by XV century the Catholics gained a total victory over Tengirchilik - its last hearths were suppressed and coated with blood of the parishioners.

The word "Tengri" disappeared from the church lexicon as a heretical one. (The name of father God!) But the Turkic obstinacy remained. In XVI century another spiritual movement - Protestantism - was formed in the Central Europe… Its originators were gradually expressing their position negating everything connected with Rome. And not proposing forgotten Tengirchilik.

By that time there were no holidays dedicated to Father God in the Christian Church! Europe depersonalized Heavenly God and called its victory over it Renaissance… Certainly another book should be written about it.

After the christening Russia was getting familiar with the prayers in the Church Slavonic language which basics were formed by the Turkic one. It was acquainting turning its face to the East - according to the traditions of Tengirchilik. And it was writing prayers in Turkic! Ancient church books are the evidence.

Isn't it indicative that even the Russian editions of Athanasius Nikitin, the Tver merchant who has visited the lands over three seas in 1466 - 1472, contained the text of a prayer in the Turkic language:

And the Russian land - God save it.

God save it!

There is no another country as beautiful as that,

Although the begs of the Russian land are unjust.

Let the Russian land come right

And let the justice live there!

The prayer is finished with word "God" like any prayer of Tengirchilik. That was the Turkic clergy in Russia.

It seems they didn't know about the tragedy of the European Turki in Desht-I-Kipchak: Rome and Constantinople didn't make a show of their victories: The barrier between East and West was practically impassable. Especially from the eastern side: it wasn't customary to go to Europe, it was indecent to talk about it since it has stepped back from God.

Only when everything settled down and the Greeks signed the Florentine union in XV century Pope turned his look far to the East - where the sun rises. As though he remembered that "the light begins in the East". The papacy conceived a new ideological intervention having called it "The Third Rome".

The conception of the "third Rome" is rather simple - to create an affiliate of the Roman Empire in the Eastern Europe. In the Florentine union Byzantine recognized itself as a subordinate of the Pope having become "the second Rome" for the Central Europe. They needed the third one in order to have power over the lands up to Ural and further to the east. And the main object was to destroy the sworn enemy of Pope - Desht-I-Kipchak - with its hated Tengirchilik.

Pope's analysts were looking towards Poland, Lithuania and Russia. Who was going to win? Those countries, from their point of view, were suitable for the prepared role.

In Russia the idea of the "third Rome" was for the first time declared by the Pskov monk Philophei in the beginning of XVI century. And it became the political theory of Moscow Russia. With that they connected a conviction that Russia is the most blameless and pious kingdom in the whole world…

The Greeks, having taken the role of producers for the further tragedy guarded the "third Rome " as well as they could; they felt that Moscow was ready to get a new role at any cost. But according to the scenario it had to "surpass everyone in piety". Thus they began to borrow the pages of the Turkic history and put them to the Russian one.

Falsification, evident deceit can be clearly read in the history of the church split of the year 1666. That is the top of all lies skillfully ignored by the Russian historians.

At that time, in the end of 1666 the ringing of bells changed in Moscow all of a sudden. "They ring for a church singing as if the fire is set on", - people used to say. Why was the ringing changed?

On the 1st of December the Church Council approved two important events: firstly, the split of the former eparchy, secondly, appearance of the Christian Church - Russian Orthodox one which was called Greek-Russian Church at that time. Those were outstanding events!

But not much has been written about those events in Russian historiography; the split is the insignificant matter. Neither of known works contains information about the reasons of the "split" and what has split. Authors lead the matter to the church reform of the patriarchy Nikon, to the ceremony missing the most important - changing of the ideology of the Church and division of society according to belief.

And that is not a church split - that is the stage of the Roman politics directed to strengthening of its domination in the east of Europe… That was Renaissance, after all!

Formerly the Pope conquered nations and countries with the assistance of the Turkic monks and Turkic knights having united them in VI century into spiritual knightly Orders (Orders, indeed! In Turkic "order" means "given from above" or "from khan's abode".). In the east of Europe he used the Greeks and the Russians. His policy was different here while the enemy was the same - spiritual culture of the Great Steppe, its last fading hearth.

It seems nothing unusual has been written about the split in the Russian literature: an ordinary reform, they corrected the mistakes in the texts and began to put fingers together otherwise while praying. What else can be discussed here?.. But was that the main thing - with how many fingers, two or three, should the Christians cross themselves? Certainly not ( No doubt, the ceremonial part of the service in the Middle Ages was of extremely high importance, sometimes it was even of critical importance. But we are not interested in the external part of religion here. ).

So what has "split" after all? The word "split" stipulates the presence of the whole which was divided into parts due to circumstances.

Tengirchilik taught humility to the fate and silent passion bearing in the name of perception of the divine truth… In Russia that observe of the religious medal was carefully polished. Varangian rulers emphasized that since it led the nation to humility and passivity. Having accepted the Turkic belief in the end of X century Varangains enlisted the world with the Turki. And, no doubt, that was their political wisdom. They weren't interested in the divine truth the same as the Greeks. It is not casual that Boris and Gleb were the first ones sainted in Russia - the whole holiness of their deed was that they let themselves to be killed with humility. Humility - the most important postulate of Tengirchilik - was carried to the point of absurdity in Russia at one stroke.

However, here the most pious thoughts have been always getting on with the materialistic behavior. In XI - XII centuries in the churches of Kiev Russia political melodies started to sound - that was happening for the first time there… In the depths of Tengirchilik brotherhood discord was arising due to the Russians.

Remaining a western country in its roots, the Varangian Russia accepted an alien eastern spiritual culture. In the "steppe" church which was called "Scythian" at the Ephesian Council II (449) East and West were kind of brought together. They failed to compromise; their split was a matter of time.

The most eastern - both in geographical and spiritual sense - eparchy, Scythia, was isolated at that time. They didn't forget the Jews guarded by it. They remembered the past magnificence of Attila. The Romans and the Greeks couldn't forget a great deal of things… Only Caucasian Churches which remained faithful to God together with the Kipchaks, were keeping in touch with the Turki. And that was called the Eastern Church in former times.

To tell the Truth, the Caucasus was under the Roman pressure; they tried to incline its pastors to belief in Christ. It Armenia that effort was partly successful; the community of the Christian Catholics appeared there in 1198, then it escaped and settled in Venice in 1717… There couldn't be a "small" split in big Russia. There was another scope - the Europeans had to industriously prepare a split during a long time.

And they did it not missing any trifles…

Tengirchilik followers were notable for their freedom -they didn't have an administration like papacy. The most important questions were settled "in a round" according to the eastern tradition - they held Councils which were convened as was needed. The Turki didn't administrate their spiritual life, they had another custom. And that was their defect - hoping for God they blundered. The Turkic allergy kind of forgot that Europe was alien for them having its own rules!

Another weakness of Tengirchilik was the fact that, as against the western Church, where the divine service was performed in Latin, it used local languages. Desire to make a service comprehensible turned out to be a disaster - it was a mess which led to dissociation and split the flock into national regions and states. In other words, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was destroyed; it wasn't united and monolithic any more… And that was also considered in Vatican. Pope's secret service was acting excellently.

Having faced the European culture Tengirchilik suffered great losses due to lack of organization first of all. In Europe Roman rules and laws were really established.

The West didn't accept the freedom of mind of the Great Steppe; it didn't bear it in its clergy. Their views towards culture and values it revealed at the Nicene Council of the year 325 and than at the Council of Chalcedon of 451. The Church was recognized as an organization above all!

The Greeks guessed that the Turki wouldn't take the part of the head of the Christian Church; Byzantine emperor Constantine headed it. And not the Turki to whom Constantine paid the levy! In Rome the Christian Church was also headed by the emperor until IX century. But that has never happened in Desht-I-Kipchak! The Turkic khans didn't even think about the power over the Church which was understood as power over God. The khans simply weren't allowed to take part in discussion of the church issues. Secular and spiritual were leading independent lives in the Great Steppe.

At first it was the same in Russia. The first one who felt tight under the roof of the Church was the prince Andrew Bogolyubskiy (1111 - 1174); he was the only one in the whole "steppe" eparchy who didn't see the force of the religious spirit but saw the force of its power instead. (Here they are, the Varangians! Here it is, the West!) Since that moment the desire to override the Church or at least its part didn't leave the Russian prince the same as it hasn't left the Greek emperor Constantine some time ago. And later - the Pope Gregory the Great.

But neither by the building of a rich church in Vladimir, nor even by the theft of a precious Kiev relic - the icon of the Blessed virgin - for him he proved anything… It was evident he lacked the Roman patience and the Greek craftiness. He was too straightforward (due to the Kipchak blood of his mother).

And although the prince ordered to paint himself with a nimbus over his head he didn't become more saint. He was prohibited to meddle with the church affairs. The conflict between the Church and temporal power in Russia matured by XII century having been formed in its depths. It was inevitable: two psychologies, two world outlooks - the Eastern and the Western ones - faced each other… Not going into details let us just mention that prince Andrew paid with his impudence, God punished him - "he wanted to be an autocrat" - were the words of his contemporaries who violently murdered him at night of June 30th, 1174.

God also saved the Tengirchilik belief during the Mongol government in Desht-I-Kipchak which was called the Golden Horde. To tell the truth, the Mongolians didn't intend to put anything under their control - Tengirchilik was close to them. Baty-khan, having come to power, wished to be christened, his son Sartakh was a clergyman - he rose to the rank of a deacon. The Mongols weren't liberal in everything, they delivered the Russian clergy from the payment of levy and guarded the churches and monasteries against the Russian princes who used to slip their hands in the church's pockets like in their own ones.

The Golden Age of Orthodoxy coincided with the Mongolian dominion in Russia. Mongolian Code of Laws gave protection to Moscow and delivered it from levy in exchange for a promise to pray for the khan and his family… Monasteries gained a great deal of advantages due to the Mongolian mercy.

In XIV century the Russians built the monasteries in the number equal to how many of them were built during the previous four centuries after they have rejected paganism. By the year 1550 there were more than two hundred of monasteries in Russia. Unfortunately, Russian historiography doesn't emphasize that fact insisting on the sufferings of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Mongolians. At that they wittingly forget to add that the Russian Church didn't exist at that time; it was formed only by 1589, more than a hundred years after the so-called Mongol-Tatar yoke.

Byzantium was skillfully inciting Moscow for breakup with the Steppe. Having signed the Florentine union in 1439, the Greeks turned into a secret weapon of Rome.

These were the Greek rulers who began to "correct" the Russian spiritual life and also politics after that. They strengthened the opinion as though Russia has accepted a cross not from the Steppe but from Byzantine. They weren't embarrassed by the fact the christening of Russia wasn't fixed in the history of the Greek Church! For the Greeks it was important to tie the young and inexperienced state with the church bonds; to win it over due to ideology. And, unfortunately, they succeeded in it.

Graecophilism started since 1393 when the Greek patriarchy wrote a letter to Moscow to prince Wasil in which he said "there are rumors" that there is the Church in Russia but without a tsar: "It is unacceptable for the Christians to have a Church and not to have a tsar. Tsardom and Church are closely connected and it is impossible to separate them".

The West began to play up to the Moscow rulers, flatter them being willing to see an ally against the Turki in them. That letter gave rise to a big political game. They began to convince Moscow of its magnificence and special role.

… As a metter of fact, the spiritual institution of the Great Steppe was recognized by the Christians as far back as V century (Ephesian Council II, the year 449), it had several centers (Astrakhan, Bryansk, Kazan, Kiev, Vladimir-Suzdal, Ryazan-Murom, Eletsk, Saraysk, Tambov and others) after the lapse of some time; patriarchy's residence was located in the Great Steppe. Albanian (purely Christian) Church at the Caucasus existed independently; it was established in 304 and existed until 1836.

There was no Church in Russia - the Greeks were cunning here. Hence their "there are rumors" that there is a Church although they knew there wasn't any. Only by 1448 Moscow obtained the right for the metropolis (Metropolitans were the bishops of the towns, their power often covered the communities of the bordering region. Metropolis is the part of the eparchy (church-administrative region).). Jonah was its first bishop; Russian antocephaly (church independence) started from him. But under the supervision of the Turkic clergy.

Prayers were read in the Turkic language in Moscow and in Russia. All the divine services were performed in it. Only its metropolis allowed Moscow to chose the language of the divine service. That was the tradition of the Steppe (ancient Orthodox) Church (According to the steppe customs other rules were established in the Russian Church. For example, a khan, with whom a member of higher orders of clergy lived (the head of the Church) was called a tsar in the Steppe from olden times. A tsar had power over the chagans, he was the supreme ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak. But only for the time while the head of the Church lived with him blessing him for this or that deed. And the Kipchaks contradict to the supreme power - their vow didn't allow disobedience. "Where there is a tsar a Horde is near", - they said in the Steppe.).

In XVI century, having learnt many things about the culture of the Great Steppe, the Greeks suggested the way for the Russian princes to capture the Church. With its help and with help of the tsar's scepter great power can be got, they convinced. And they were absolutely right… But how could one capture the spiritual power?

They needed to start a war against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates and, having weakened the eparchy, to move the patriarchy to Moscow. In that case Moscow prince would have become the ruler of Desht-I-Kipchak and the tsar of the whole Russia…

When the military troubles were "settled down", Kazan and Astrakhan fell. And in 1589 (under the prince Fyodor) they established an eparchy in Moscow. Thus, at bottom of fact, Moscow was becoming the capital of the empire and the spiritual center of the Turkic lands!.. Tsar's authorities inspired, turn the heads and it was important to strengthen the success. Thus started what was called "interlunation" by the historians .It happened because of the Russians themselves who have given rise to grand political changes and regrouping of power in the society. Those were very anxious times.

Boris Godunov, the native of the Steppe, who excellently knew the Turkic traditions, having got rid of Fyodor, called himself "the Russian tsar" having shown the qualities of an active politician. He turned to the Greek pastors and trusted them for "generous alms" (as it is written in the document) to execute not quite legal transaction. Four Greek patriarchies, not even having read the papers (they didn't have time to translate them) put their signatures on the Russian original. They recognized the fifth person - he Moscow patriarchy - as equal to them. And that was all! Nothing else was needed. The Russian Church was established, it entered the international scene and legally obtained the rights equal to those of the Turki.

Turning during that memorable year 1589 to the Russian tsar, Constantinopolitan patriarchy Jeremiah uttered the words which really impressed the tsar. V.O. Klyuchevskiy reproduced them as follows: "Old Rome has fallen due to heresy; the second Rome - Constantinople - is owned by the Hagarian grandsons; and the third Rome - the Russian kingdom - has surpassed everyone in piety".

These were really cautious words: they've become the part of the Roman policy.

After that sacramental words if the Greek patriarchy certain facts of further Russian history become clear - the Greek determines the course of certain events. For example, who would knock together the armies in the Russian - Turkish wars. Why Russian cannon-fodder would be that cheap at the European military markets… A great deal of things in the history of XVI - XVIII and following centuries (the period of Romanovs government) is represented in other shades as compared with Europocentric literature: it becomes evident that Russian tsars lived according to the Greek standards!

Russia believed in its role of Byzantium's successor and the ruler of the Orthodox world.

However, similar ambitions were peculiar for it before, when the Greeks, through the marriage of Sophia Paleologus (niece of the latest emperor) with the Moscow prince Ivan III, entered the Kremlin and strengthened themselves there having proclaimed Russia Byzantium's successor and having begun to stir the Russian up against the Turki - against Kazan and Astrakhan khanates.

Open despotism promptly turned into the policy of Moscow. Which, of course, gave rise to protest of the local clergy, which was shown in the collision of the metropolitan Philip and Ivan the Terrible. The metropolitan couldn't see the meaningless annihilation of the nation. And he demanded "from the prince to stop oprichnina". For aggressive policy was led under cover of oprichnina and the power of Ivan the Terrible was strengthening! Everything was mixed up in a political sense - due to the Greeks.

Earlier, before their meddling, ethnic unity even wasn't in question in Russia. There were no national problems. It is enough to turn to the family trees of the Russian nobility to make sure that over a half of the nobles are the natives of the Steppe and not the Slavs or the Russians. Ivan the Terrible wanted to equalize the country by oprichnina. And oprichnina was just exhausting Russia and not curing it.

However, the tsar ignored the metropolitan's demand to stop oprichnina. And Malyuta Skuratov put an end to it - he choked Philip.

Thus the Moscow prince subdued the Church by force and assigned the title of a "tsar" to himself! He succeeded in it in part: they were afraid of him but they didn't listen to him.

Having called himself a tsar, Ivan IV immersed into an illusion of spiritual freedom. He generously awarded the priests and the monasteries which supported him in his struggle against the choked metropolitan. But the impostor has forgotten that he is also mortal and God would make answer for innocent blood. As a matter of fact, the Varangian dynasty of Ryurikoviches in Moscow came to an end very soon… "One cannon deceive God", - common people used to say and cross themselves with relief.

Tengirchilik remained standing again, it restrained itself as though during a fight still remaining common for the Slavic Russian and the Turkic Steppe.

Physical strength is not good help in spiritual disputes in Russia - the Greeks quickly understood that. They've become alert due to the fact that in Moscow John Neronov began to gather the adherents of the peace achievement of independence by the Russian Church. But the unity of the Russian clergy wasn't planned by the Greeks; they counted on other things.

Only Alexei Mikhaylovich, the Moscow tsar, was aware of the plans of his idols. To perform everything without blood and choking.

Just having become the Russian tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich declared himself the worshipper of Ivan the Terrible and wasn't up to repeat his mistakes. He asked God for forgiveness for the abuse of monarchy on the grave of the killed metropolitan Philip. And having prayed for forgiveness of the sins, he started to act.

He turned Moscow into the center of "Moscovites" - bureaucracy was established everywhere. A great deal of "departments" appeared those days. Dozens of them. Only one thing was missing - the Church Department… And the tsar decided to create the Christian Church to rule over it by example of the Byzantine emperors.

Opponents of the belief in Heavenly God accustomed Moscow to Christianity from afar. They made the boyar Morozov the tutor of tsarevitch Alexei; Morozov hated Russia and the Steppe and recognized only the West. How did they manage to do it?! In any case, that wasn't accidentally.

In a word, the pupil surpassed his tutor; tsar sought a council from him until his death… So let us think: was the anxious time really anxious? Was it by accident that after the series of failures with False-Demetriuses (foreign tsars) Mikhail Romanov took the Russian throne in 1613? How did he do that? Why was the former family Turkic until the middle of XIV century - Kobyl (dandy, fop) at first, then - Koshkins and at the close of XVI century - Zakharyin-Yuryevs, Zakharyin-Koshkins? And how did Romanov name appear?

It is known that the father of the first Russian tsar from the Romanov dynasty, patriarchy Philaret (Fyodor Zakharyiev-Yuryev) was close to the Greek patriarchy… And that reveals certain things. Appearance of Romanov name in particular. In Latin that word means "Roman", considering the former events the change of "Koshkin" name into "Romanov" gets an evident political implication which couldn't be neglected in Rome.

The Europeans have become regular visitors at Moscow in the time of Romanovs, they used to go there as if it was their home. Alexei Mikhailovich himself, especially after his visit to Poland, was regarded almost as a Catholic. He even changed his clothes for the western ones and demanded on other grandees to do the same.

European spirit was indomitably penetrating the pores of the Kremlin! Into every chink. Doors and windows were wide open there. The Greeks behaved as the masters: they taught and gave advises not in a whisper but at the top of their voices… Pope's messengers visited there like the inspectors.

Of course, nobody would never determine in detail how it was happening. But the fact remains that Russia started to turn away from the past, in other words, it started to turn away from itself accepting a new way of life advantageous for the West. (That was the reason of split, in our opinion.) But in order to get what they wanted they needed a Church Council where Tengirchilik could be officially rejected and Russia could become a Christian country by example of the western ones.

That Council took place in 1654; the split commenced at that time. And in 1666 they approved of what has already happened drawing a line under the decisions of the Council of 1654.

They invited the Greek patriarchies - Paisius Alexandrian and Makar Antikhian - to run the new Council. They invited them knowing that both of them were dethroned due to their sympathy to Rome. But nevertheless they were invited. And they came. Two secret Jesuits, two evident swindlers decided the fate Tengirchilik be the silent benediction of the Kremlin. By the will of the Council and with its hands they split Russia and the Steppe - the last bulwark of belief in Heavenly God - that's what split at that time!.. Ii seems the star above Rome was shining really bright those days.

Tsar Alexei substituted the free Church by the Church Order and his son Peter I even withdrew the word "church" form everyday life having changed it with another official title - Orthodox Confession Department. Tsar Alexei regarded Nikon as a voevode for his Church Order; Nikon was the Moscow patriarchy since 1652 and showed himself as a self-willed person dreaming of power.

Spiritual ideals were alien and incomprehensible for ignorant Nikon. He cared for power and nothing else. Just having taken the patriarchy's pulpit, he started to change everything according to the Greek rules destroying everything relating to the Turki. He introduced the Greek clothes in the Russian Church and Greek food in the patriarchy's cookery… Everything was taken fro the aliens.

And the Greeks, looking back at Rome, prudently led their policy: after the loss of Byzantine in 1453 they regarded Russia as an ally against the Turki. They were doing a great deal of things during a long period of time in order to win the inexperienced Russians over. One could be envious of their diligence. In 1650, for example, in the monastery on Athos they publicly burnt ancient church books written in Turkic language. An entire library! Thus they wished the new books for Russia.

A little bit earlier the Greeks invented another "news" for the Russian history. It turns out, the famous Monomach's hat, the symbol of Russian autocracy, was made… in Byzantium. That was supposed to be a present of the emperor Constantine to the Kiev prince Vladimir. An unscrupulous lie, but it has also become the page of the Russian history proving the traditional character of the relationship between Russian and Byzantium.

The Greeks were disgracefully cunning in small and bi items proving the political theory of the "third Rome".

The split in relation between the Steppe and Russia was industriously performed by them during a long period of time; neither Russian tsar nor Nikon were aware of all the secret peculiarities thereof. The patriarchy was ordered to correct the church books, to introduce new ranks and ceremonies. In other words, to create a new Church. The Christian one! And Nikon gave orders since he was sure he was reforming the old Tengirchilik Church!

One would think, free Russian led a free policy… But no, as a matter of fact there was no freedom - they followed the instructions left by Rome. One of them was as follows:

"… d) the tsar should carefully speak about the union so that the matter doesn't start form him but let the Russians themselves be the first to suggest several insignificant changes of the subjects of their belief, which requires some reforms and thus make the way to the union;

e) to issue a law so that the Russian Church is in accordance with the rules of the Greek Councils and to order the execution of the laws to reliable people being the adherents of the union: disputes will arise, the tsar will know about them, convene a Council and after that there will be an opportunity to proceed to the union;

f) to hint at the privileges to the black clergy, at the awards to the white clergy, at freedom for people and at the slavery of the Greeks to everyone".

Approval of the union itself, i.e. official recognition of the Roman power over Russia didn't happen. However, the ceremony of approval would have been a useless farce. As a matter of fact the union was accepted by Moscow: Pope's instruction relating to the reform of the Russian Church was followed! Russia became a Christian country. And for that time they needed nothing else.

Conflict between the Eastern and the Western ideologies arose not by accident. Tengirchilik was bringing a person up making him ready for a feat, for an action; in other words a person was ready for development. Its philosophy of the reincarnation of the soul accepted by the Buddhists has never deprived man of hope. Even after death, having been purified on hell or in heaven and judged by the Most High, man is born again - Tengirchilik clergy taught. Man is given a chance to correct his former sins - that's the wisdom of Tengri's teaching about the eternity of the soul.

The great Tengri teaches that each man creates heaven or hell for him with his own hands. Everything depends only upon him and his behavior… That's why all the Turki appreciated actions and deeds of man above all.

Christianity, having made the law of Tengirchilik simpler, calls man to save his soul, i.e. it calls him to inactivity. The less you do the less you sin. The future is determined as eternal heaven or hell. And that's all! To call, to wait, to have fear, to love the nearest, to save yourself, to humble, not to grumble, to turn another cheek, to suffer, to see pleasure in pains and poverty… and so on and so forth… These were supposed to be Christ's testaments. So that the people peacefully wait for the end of their days… and loved absolutely everyone. Even the scoundrels in the Greek sandals and Roman togas who were put into luxury and lechery.

What else could be invented to conquer the nations?!

Is there a better ideology for an empty head of a slave?.. In fact, the Greeks and the Romans gained revenge for Attila, for their former shame having turned the great riders into a miserable race of slaves which doesn't look into the Eternal Blue Sky.

The Greeks forced to change the divine pantheon in Russian at the Moscow Council of 1666. The main figure in the new Church was not God but Christ. The West insisted on his supremacy.

Inexperienced Russia fondly but violently understood that major ideological doctrine - everything was about how to write "Joshua" or "Jesus". The Russians didn't see the difference between "God" and "not a God" but they felt it since they had two beliefs: they believed in Heavenly God but remained adherent to the ancient Slavonic beliefs - "beliefs of their fathers". They haven't been forgotten until now. The Russian Orthodox Church still recognizes some pagan cults (Shrovetide and others).

And at the Council of 1666 nobody understood that another ideology was hidden behind Christ.

Rome proved that its arguments were weightier. By that time Moscow has also recognized them! It didn't call the Pope the Lord of the World as etiquette requires… However, it seems that trifle was forgiven.

The main thing was the Theological Board instead of the free theological institute… Here they are - "a few unimportant subjects of the belief", as it is written in the Pope's instruction. But, again according to the instruction, the patriarchy Nikon paid attention to them but not the tsar himself!.. All secrets were being revealed even in detail. Pope's instructions did their best.

Six major innovations were written into the former law in Russia. Of course six doesn't equal sixty as it was with the Catholics. But in spiritual life one word is enough to destroy everything.

Six innovations! And what innovations… Crossing with two fingers was replaced by that with three. Why? Two fingers is the sign of Tengirchilik ( The Greek patriarchy Makar told Nikon that everyone who crosses himself with two fingers imitates the heretics (i.e. the Turki) and should be cursed.).

It was also prohibited to write "Joshua"; it was ordered to write and pronounce "Jesus" - in the European manner. With no explanations!

It is set in the old books: during the christening, wedding ceremony and consecration of the church to lead the procession clockwise. Nikon ordered to do it in the opposite direction… The trifles? Certainly not. In 1479 during the consecration of Dormitory Church the Greek metropolitan Gerontious began to walk not as Tengirchilik followers - clockwise - but in the opposite direction when the great prince Ivan III stopped him saying that it would lead to God's anger. However, in 1666 Moscow, having forgotten about inevitable God's anger, led the Russian Church against God's will.

Ideology of the belief was changing on account of that trifles in Russia, it was becoming pro-tsarist and westernized! Moscow that was dreaming about the laurels of the leader of the Orthodox world obtained freedom of action.

It wasn't by accident that Nikon founded New Jerusalem Monastery and the town New Jerusalem in 1656! In his opinion it was the future capital of the Christian world… Thus the new history began in Russia; it was connected, according to Klyuchevskiy, with "colonization of other lands and nations".

Nobody was embarrassed by the fact that the new "Moscow" Church was of no sense as a bearer of morals of society since it was said: "If the pastor isn't free the flock isn't free either". And pastor was the first one who wasn't free. Moscow "confessor", as any voevode, was appointed and dismissed by tsar's whims.

And what is more, the Russian clergymen denounced the secrets of confessions to the authorities. They were deprived of their dignities if they didn't - they were simply kicked out.

Of course, the pious Russian nation, having been brought up with the Kipchak traditions, would have never accepted the western innovations proclaimed by the patriarchy Nikon if he didn't have the tsar's bludgeon in his hands… That force defeated Russia.

The Theological Board was acting in Moscow: the officials of Patriarchy's and Diocesan Departments (those bureaus were created!) were rewriting and correcting ancient divine books and introducing the new ceremonies into the liturgy. "Correction of divine in itself couldn't defile those books, - wrote the famous theologian, professor N.D. Uspenskiy, if the printed editions were suitable… but that high quality was absent in aforementioned western editions". And all the alterations were taken from the Greek books printed in the Latin printing-houses in Venice!

The Greek Arsenius administered correction of the books; he used to change Orthodoxy for Catholicism and vice verse and was judged for swindle. That "convict", the "sly Greek" (as it is written in literature about him) established the school where he taught the youth Greek and Latin and rules of life by tsar Alexei's order.

The Turki used to rewrite divine books by hand in old times. But how? With monks' pains. Their skill was deemed to be sacred. Any slip in a book was regarded almost as a sin. According to the experts, ancient books contain less mistakes as compared with the modern printing ones. What correction were in question at the Moscow Councils of 1654 and 1666?

Having access to the monastery's library, B. Kutuzov, the historian and theologian, compared old and new texts. The results were surprising: the "old" ones are more accurate and deeper. And there are fewer mistakes in them. One cannot object to astonishing results of B. Kutuzov - they are concrete. That work is very well-founded. Apart form it works by other theologians are also known; for example - by the professor N.D. Uspenskiy.

The "new" books seemed to work for a split. That is evidenced by numerous examples. For example, it was written in the old text: "We pray to You, God, and let the evil spirit leave the one crossing himself; and in the new one: "… let it leave the crossing one, we pray to you, the evil spirit". People were terrified having read that: "We don't want to pray to the evil spirit".

What is it - a mistake, a provocation? Or an open humiliation of the Russians? No, all those things had another explanation - "reformers" didn't know the language in which they were correcting the texts! They came from abroad and didn't understand the Russian texts in which the Turkic words and phrases were mixed with the Russian ones. That was the specific character of the Church Slavonic language!

Thus an everlasting mess in Russian spiritual life started with ignorance of the Russian culture and neglect of its Turkic roots.

The first martyrs for the true belief in Russia were the priests Jon Neronov, Loggin, Daniel, Habakkum and the bishop Paul Kolomenskiy who mentioned during a conversation with almighty Nikon that "they didn't accept the new belief". Beating was Nikon's reply. An exile and tortures followed and, having heard the last "no" the latter-day Moscow Christians burnt the great martyrs in 1682.

The Russian Church was under full control of the Greeks by that time; the power was given to I. and S. Likhud brothers, the pupils of the Jesuit colleges of Venice and Padova. They were performing "Nikon's" reform in Russia… In other words, they finally established the Greek-Russian Church! Thus was called the organization known as the Russian Orthodox Church today.

In 1687 one of the brothers headed the Theological Hellene - Greek Academy - the center of training of the staff for the state's and the Church's needs (today that is Moscow Theological Academy in Trinity-Sergiev Laura). Brothers also created a network of Hellene - Greek schools having begun with Epiphany Monastery and Monastery of the Savior… The western world outlook was implied even at secular schools.

God-loving Russia was irrepressibly changing turning into Christian Russia.

In order to make the pious Russian nation accept the new belief and new books, in order to give power to Christian rulers, the Council of 1666 decided: "To execute the opponents of the Church's decisions violently: to imprison them, to exile, to beat them with beef sinews, cut their noses and ears off, cut their tongues and hands".

The ones who have declared themselves the sages were acting in madness.

"The third Rome", "pious Christian kingdom" was preparing a base for itself. Before the splitting Council - in 1664 - the tsar started to act toughly. Military expeditions of the prince Ivan Prozorovskiy and the colonel Alexander Lopukhine showed their valor in full. They annihilated the chapels, churches, monasteries together with their inhabitants.

But the stubborn nation didn't accept the new "Jesuit" belief; it opposed to the utmost. So annihilation of the old clergy commenced. They killed just for putting two fingers together and looking into Heaven during a prayer! Or for mentioning of Heavenly God… Russia was getting mad to pleasure Europe.

Alterations affected everything - they used to rewrite liturgical music which marked the grandeur of the liturgy itself for the Turki. They were doing it in Italian manner, of course. But even being distorted it makes a strong impression, especially at Eastertide showing the heavenly magnificence which it contained and was deprived of.

They also repainted the Turkic icons. They rejected the old elegant school in icon-painting which Andrei Rublev followed and stuck to the new "Moscow" school - with puffed up Greek faces.

They even put the formulations against which were all the Russian clergymen into the Rules of the Greek Russian Christian Church. This only fact witnesses about much things that were happening in Russia at that time.

The theory of the "third Rome" has fallen - having created the Christian Church, the Greeks made Russia not the keeper of the traditions but the destroyer thereof: "The harbinger of the further reign of the Holy Spirit on the Earth simply turned into one of the monarchies - a common state but with new imperial pretensions".

Thus the historians write about those events.

Tsar Alexei was industriously and purposefully "cutting the window to Europe". In the course of those years Islam became especially popular among the Russian Turki. Defeated but not crushed, they didn't wish to betray Tengri-Khan. They didn't want to recognize Christ who, in their opinion, was carrying Russian arms.

Knowing that Allah and Tengri were the names of Heavenly God more and more Kipchaks (to spite the "Greek" Moscow) started to learn other ceremonies of worship of Heavenly God in XVII century. And today the Moslem Kipchaks are the only ones who address Allah with the names Tengri or Khodai. That is absolutely right. Thus the ancestors used to pray before Common Era when there was no Christianity or Islam but was invincible Alla, the Most High Tengri-Khan.

So they turned to him (The subject of Islam is very important for the Turkic culture. We are not to discuss it in this book. Another big book is necessary which the author is about to write. The work it has already begun.). In ancient times the word "Alla" meant "giving and taking away" for the Turki. For that reason people turned their palms to Heaven saying: "Alla". That expression remained with the Chuvashes, Buryats and Khakases (not being Muslins): it goes from "al" (hand). And doesn't the famous Arabian "In the name of Allah, kind and merciful" come from here?

These are the words of a Tengirchilik follower! In the Arab translation they are the continuation of the famous ancient Turkic phrase "Alla - giving and taking away". Its latest and final pronunciation. Why not?

Islam was propagated by the Turki, leading Islamite scientists were also basically from their circles… The idea of Islam - the pure belief! - could be born only with the people knowing the image of Heavenly God and having seen the outrage upon Him. In the culture of pagan Arabs, as well as the Greeks and Romans, there was no such an image. Only the Turki, having worshipped Tengri from of old, seeing the outrage upon belief performed by the Greeks, found a new way to the Most High - through Islam (Egypt and the Arabian East were the most predisposed to deviation from the Greek Christianity. Disappointment in belief in Christ of the Arabs started in V century (since the Council of Chalcedon of 451). At that time the Greeks, being afraid of strengthening of the positions of Egypt in the Mediterranean region, skillfully defiled the Alexandrian (Egyptian) Church and its hierarchs. At that Council it became clear that Europe has been creating a new power institution under cover of religion. And nothing else! Byzantium was trying to subdue the former colonies of the eastern regions of the Roman Empire by fair means or foul, but Egypt didn't want another subjection. And, knowing the morals of the Greeks, it took the same course - created and propagated the new religion - but a pure one! - Islam, with assistance of the Tengirchilik Kipchaks in VII century. The former numerous Alexandrian flock accepted it. Belief only in Tengri (Alla) who was called "Allah" in the Arabian manner, united the East before the increasing aggression of the West. It should be mentioned in this connection that early Islam (its canon) is considerably different from modern. It isn't unlikely that it was close to Tengirchilik in form and in spirit.).

"Gracious" means "regarding with favor", or "giving" in other words. "Merciful" means "ready to help", i.e. "taking the worries and troubles away". That sense is contained in the short Turkic phrase "Alla" which was heard in Altai mountains two and a half thousand years ago for the first time.

Hence is another known expression "God's hand".

The Kipchaks of the Russian Empire, those who accepted Islam, saved themselves as the nation of Desht-I-Kipchak. And those who believed the "Greek" cross "disappeared" - they became the Russians. They were christened by force in XVIII - XIX centuries, they were given Russian names and registered as Russians. There are millions of them.

They are not the steppe inhabitants but the Slavs now. The Great Steppe has been forgotten, its traditions are not clear. Ryazan, Penza, Simbirsk, Saratov, Samara, Don, Tula, Kursk, Belgorod, Tambov, Caucasian, Siberian and other yesterday's Kipchaks live with another history now. Having neither roots nor ancestors.

The memory about the Greek terror against Desht-I-Kipchak remains in churches reconstructed into mosques by the Turki. There are Tengirchilik signs on the ancient walls and a six-pointed star was added - the symbol pointing to the change of belief.

To please the Greeks Russia even changed the form of an under cross. They were equilateral earlier… What does that mean? An unexpected conclusion: it turns out not all the Russian Old Believers are the "keepers of the true belief", as they call themselves. They have a Greek cross! They accepted it and remained safe during the tsar's persecutions. An eight-pointed cross… And that says everything.

Formerly neither the Russians nor the Turki called themselves the Christians; it was in another way: "Do you believe in God?" If you do, you are with us. Thus there was no international strife in Russia. "God help us!", - the ancestors used to rush to attack. They lived "for God's sake"… They believed in God and worshipped an equilateral cross.

After the Council of 1666 Russia has been mutilating its spiritual culture for almost 250 years, it has been wiping it out from the nation. But even being violently wounded, belief in God didn't die: people practiced a religion secretly, they left for the forests, moors and Siberia, they suffered cold and hunger but they gave the image of heavenly God to their children… Although much has been forgotten in the course of centuries.

Peter I was especially violent, he started his reign from a campaign against the Cossacks in the Great Steppe where holy belief in Heavenly God strongly lived in purity those days. The idea of Azov campaigns has been nurtured with the Greeks and the Romans for a long time - that was the colonization of the Steppe and the final stroke against the belief in God.

Under Peter the Caucasian Kipchaks - the bearers of the pure belief - were regarded as a drunken company, like runaway criminals - the Russian riffraff. Since that times people have been thinking that the Cossacks are the fugitives. Peter even chose a seal for the Cossack army to mock at them - a naked Cossack on an empty pipe - everything has been drunk away.

And in good old days not a drunkard but a deer was the symbol of Don; a heavenly deer who appeared in Altai with the Kipchaks. They built route posts and stones for it of which modern Cossacks, it seems, have never heard. A deer is the most ancient symbol of belief in the Great Steppe.

In order to suppress the Don liberty Peter sent prince Dolgorukiy. S.M. Solovyev, the famous Russian historian, wrote about those terrible events as follows: "On the 4th of November Dolgorukiy came here; the thieves came out to fight but they couldn't resist the tsar's army and turned back to their settlement; the winners entered there also, dislodged the Cossacks from the settlement and turned them out to Don slashing them with no mercy; 3000 people were killed, many drowned, some were shot while they were swimming and those who managed to reach the other bank froze… Reshetov settlement was set on fire, but that was the last fire. Don calmed down".

"The thieves" were taught a good lesson - they started to call the Tengirchilik mutineers with that word. And there were other similar lessons which taught the Kipchaks nothing.

That's them - the Kipchaks - the indefatigable and abrupt nation.

Unfortunately, neither official authorities nor the official Russian Church were remorseful of the performed split. Only the holy fathers of the "Nomadic Council", the real Orthodox Church, decided in 1928: "Unjust oaths and curses on the ancient Orthodox ceremony and piety are invalid and detestable; the Great Moscow Council of 1666 - 1667 is not "Great" but Russian, predatory council. For those abusing the ancient ceremony and piety: anathema".

Much has been forgotten, indeed. But not everything.

Part IV

Desht-I-Kipchak - an Unknown Land?

What is the essence of a feat? An act not everyone would dare for - not everyone is able for it. For tens and hundreds of years information is being accumulated, which brings up the only one who dares throw down a challenge to the settled opinion of society. And prove his case. Even if hi is not understood by the contemporaries - other generations will come to an understanding. The truth never suffers.

The baron Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen (1825 - 1902) performed his scientific feat imperceptibly for his fellow countrymen. He published a unique work with a prosaic title "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" in which the time obscure not only for Russia is analyzed. As a matter of fact that period in the world history still remains a "blank spot". Was there the Tatar-Mongol yoke? And what was it like?

"Lack of well-grounded, maybe full and critically analyzed history of the Golden Horde, - wrote Tisengausen in 1884, - is one of the most important and significant blanks in our native way of life description".

One cannot assert that anything has changed since then; and, however one cannot neglect the fact that nobody has ever performed such a huge work (In this connection we can mention, perhaps, only the works by B.D. Grekov and L.N. Gumilev in which an attempt of deviation from the standard approach to the "steppe" subject has been made.).

Desht-I-Kipchak is the land unknown in Russia. History of the Turki is an unknown science. As if they've never existed. Why? An idle question. Even if an encyclopedia contains no information about the Turkic nation, its culture and language… The Slavs have existed and the Turki haven't. And is there any reason for astonishment - the book by Tisengausen, published in XIX century, passed by the censor and dedicated to centuries-old non-Russian events was also subject to "repression" in 1937. In the National Library there is only the first volume of the aforementioned work published in 1884, and the second one was reissued in 1941. They reissued it having edited and abridged, and the original was obliterated.

But Tisengausen wasn't the first one who tried to put together everything known about Desht-I-Kipchak or the Horde as it was often called in Russia… In the 30s of XIX century Russian Academy of Science announced a competition for the book about the Golden Horde. All in vain - nobody wished to take part. They declared about prize money. All in vain again: the competition stipulated very difficult conditions - "to take the Russian sources into consideration in all their volume".

It is impossible to do that! One cannot bring something evidencing to the point of view of authorities in relation to the south of Russia not sinning against the truth and not calling his scientific honor into question. Their position is too far from the truth! Seizure of a neighboring country is nothing else but a seizure.

Unfortunately, at those times Europe, being proud of its enlightenment, pronouncedly ignored the results of sciences of other countries - especially from the East. And the Russian science has been strongly affected by the Western one since XVIII century - Europocentrism approved by Rome and its place of the remote area of Europe suited it.

Hence is emphatic neglect in relation to everything Turkic , i.e. more ancient - in other words, to its roots. Westernization was the reason of that. No one needs another Russia in Europe.

… At last the only work was put on the table of the head of the jury in Petersburg - it was written by Joseph von Hammer-Purgstal. To tell the truth, the German scientist disregarded the main condition of the competition: he didn't trouble himself with the Russian sources not just because he didn't know the language but because they seemed too discrepant to him. His book was written on the basis of foreign sources - Arabian, European, Chinese and Persian ones.

But even references to more than 400 historical documents didn't convince the head of the jury of the Russian Academy of Sciences. As one might expect it couldn't approve that research work.

The proud German treated the suggestion to reconsider his "wrong" position with disdain. In four years his work was published. And what is more, he demanded on the members of the jury to provide the reviews of his off-cast work, published them accompanying with bilious remarks convicting of pettiness of the reviewers. Their names were dishonored in the scientific world and the honor of the Russian science was put into question… However, the word "honor" might be high-flown here - it is not in its right place.

Broken out scandal resulted in inclusion of Hammer's work into the censored lists so that it has become a bibliographic rarity in Russia; and the interest of the Academy to the dangerous subject has noticeably decreased.

Time cures. Everything can be forgotten and covered by the mist of forgetfulness - the discomfiture has also been forgotten. Little by little Russian historians were also getting into the "steppe" subject; but they worked under surveillance of the censors. Because of the danger of generalizing they were allowed to take only small episodes of the events. They could deal with only insignificant splits of the past. And they did it with trembling hands.

For example, one of the scientists thoughtfully marked: "There are unknown dashes and dots on many coins of the Russian princes". And a few lines below he made a discouraging conclusion from his observation: that was ancient Russian writing. And besides he gave a translation of "unknown dashes and dots" adapting it to the known "Vladimir on the table and here is his silver…"Academician B. Rybakov also contributed his priceless share by translation of the inscriptions from ancient Russian stack-stands. To tell the truth, in contrast to the said "translator", the academician, as usual, reconstructed the text adding the "missing" letters.

Looking at this science one could only sigh with sorrow. "Ancient Russian" texts made with "unknown dashes and dots" often turned our to be the Turkic runic writing. It is impossible to translate them not knowing the ancient Turkic language.

Real (without politics!) scientific works relating to the history of the Steppe and of the Turki have never been written, although there are theses on this subject. From time to time unassuming articles and short translations appeared but scientists simply weren't allowed to reconstruct the course of events. Their "small works" were basically added to the works by the eastern and western authors having visited the lands of the Golden Horde: Plano Carpini, Marco Polo, Ibn Battutu, William Rubruk and others. In the Steppe the Russians were allowed to search for remains just of the Slavic settlements or Scythian ones at worst.

Authorities forced even the big scientists - V.N. Tatischev and N.M. Karamzin - to invent new "fundamental" histories of Russia (The Kipchak, the native of the noble Crimean family, N.M. Karamzin kind of imitated the destiny of another Kipchak historian, Jordan. His comments are also the key for the keen; sometimes they are in evident contradiction with the main text written by the tsar's order.). So can we have a grudge against S.M. Solovyev or V.O. Klyuchevskiy - their followers? They were given the base for their works (like Monomakh's teaching) and they were choosing vivid details proving an opportunity to discuss several small items and to take the reader away from the main point - the base itself with its disfigured "official" architecture.

Architects of the history of Russia have always been sitting in the offices of the censors, their names have always been unknown, but they were the only ones laying down the conditions. They made Russia the country of "double standard" and its science of "double morals"…

Since XV century the foreigners have become regular visitors at Moscow, they left interesting and instructive notes fixing the things which could be used by the West in its policy in them. Inaccuracies are seldom met in them. A part of those notes was, of course, of entertaining character and certain were written by those willing to flatter. They remained! And according to that evidences independent from Moscow authorities another impression about Russia and its look is made as compared with what "double" Russian science says.

Almost every foreigner visiting Russia in XVI century marked slyness and mendacity of its inhabitants. "People in Moscow, they say, are more sly and crafty than anywhere else and are especially treacherous while performing obligations…" - one of the guests wrote. "Concerning their keeping of the word the Russians mostly ignore it as soon as they can gain something by deceit or breach of their obligations", - wrote another.

"… Neither Russian believes anything and he would never say something one can rely on. These features make the Russians contemptible in the eyes of their neighbors", - J. Fletcher marked in XVI century.

Bondage or slavery are the only explanations of the unexpected turns in Russian Historical works at which reasonable people only laugh. There are too many examples. The most significant is the book by marquis Astolph de Quistine who thoroughly examined the work by Karamzin translated into French in XIX century… Who was it who needed that translation?

The French scientist wrote about the "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin as follows: "If only the Russians knew everything an attentive reader can find in the book by that flattering historian whom they glorify; they should have hated him and begged the tsar to prohibit reading all the Russian historians and first of all Karamzin so that the past remains in the beneficial dark of oblivion for the welfare of the despot and happiness of the nation".

That's a good advice! "If only they knew…" But how could they know? The society is slowly rotting "for the reason it believed the words of no meaning", wrote de Quistine about Russia. Controversies are about to kill the society "in order to feed on its corpse". He was a real soothsayer, that self-assured French.

In XX century Russia has become the country "which one leaves with great pleasure and returns to with great sorrow". It has become a bad country for its nation! But, de Quistine draws a conclusion, "Providence gathers these inactive forces in the east of Europe not in vain. Sometimes the sleeping giant is to awake and the force will put an end to the kingdom of the words".

Thus it would be since a lie is not eternal.

We have already mentioned mythical Slavic Russians of which a part of the Russians was formed under unclear circumstances… A real absurd… But it has become a part of the academic science. The new "change" has begun in XVIII century - the Turki were officially becoming the Russians. The number of the Slaves in certain Russian settlements increased hundreds and thousands of times. Not genocide but something else was performed in the country; there isn't even a name for it. An entire nation was proclaimed non-existing - that was the Turkic nation!

Another part of the Russians appeared from the Tatar-Mongols. That was the whole Southern Russia lying to the south from the Moskva River to the Caucasus! Tens of millions of people! The term "Tatar-Mongols" was introduced. They frightened the children in schools with it calling them a monster which destroyed the wellbeing of Russia and is the reason of all its troubles and sufferings. But what kind of a hybrid is it - the "Tatar-Mongols"? And who has invented it?

For the first time that absurdity was formed by P.A. Naumov, the schoolteacher, in 1823. He wrote in his brochure as follows: "… All the historians agree that those mighty conquerors were not the Tatars but the Mongols", - the aforementioned author described the events of XIII century, while the Mongols "approaching to the boundaries of our country and the countries of the Western Asia became stronger on account of the local Tatars, i.e. the nations of the Turkish tribe". Thus a stunning idea came to Naumov's mind: to call them Tatar-Mongols. The schoolteacher had neither knowledge nor imagination to do something else.

But the scientists of Petersburg liked his logics and the label stuck to the Turki was introduced to the scientific lexicon in 1823. "Tatar-Mongol" yoke was also suitable for Moscow authorities due to its terrifying vagueness… It borne something really ominous and frightening.

Did anybody except Karamzin think about the fact that the nation "Tatars" didn't exist in XIII century. "Neither of modern Tatar nations calls itself the Tatars", - the great Russian historian marked in XIX century.

So who are they, the Tatars?

The word "Tatars" was borrowed from the Kipchaks and the latter borrowed it from the Chinese. Thus one of the nations of the Central Asia was called in antiquity; it lived on the border between China and Mongolia. That nation was closer to the Mongols in its culture. Later the word "Tatars" had a collective meaning for the Chinese the same as it happened with the "Huns" and "Barbarians" in Europe. In III century B.C. the Chinese fenced off the Tatars with the Great Chinese Wall. But according to the late Chinese conceptions the Tatars were divided into white, black and wild; in other words nobody has ever seen ethnic unity in them.

After China was conquered by Chingis-Khan the word "Tatars" obtained another meaning there and related only to the Mongols who have headed the Horde.

There was no difference between the Mongols and the Tatars for the Russians, both were the people form the East for them. The Russians started to call the Tatars everybody coming from the East and the Germans everybody coming from the West.

The destiny of the real Tatars was tragic: at first they were pressed by Yesugey-Batagur, the father of Chingis-Khan, the Tatars poisoned him for that, but the son fittingly avenged. Temuchin wrote in the "Secret History of the Mongols": "We defeated the hated enemies - the Tatars, those murderers of our fathers and grandfathers when we annihilated the whole Tatar nation as a deserved punishment for their murderous deeds". Only a few managed to save form the mighty revenge.

That's because it is incorrect to talk about the union between the Mongols and the Tatars. There was no union! And there could never be. There was a subjection of remaining Tatars to the Mongols. These two words cannot stand together even in theory… And it is especially incorrect to call the Kipchaks with that curse knowing they've "been never concerned with the Mongol Tatars from the Central Asia". The Kipchaks were formerly called "Polovtsyans" in Russia, and in Europe they were called "Kumans".

Why did Russian rulers need to humiliate and split Kipchak nation into small Turkic nations, invent the names and nicknames for them? In order to rule dividing? To divide and to rule!

The merit of Vladimir Gustavovich Tisengausen was that he tool the risk to make that misunderstanding clear. A misunderstanding, indeed! Carefully, without any comments, he proposed the facts. But "bare" facts, as it turns out, tell more than thick books.

Baron Tisengausen took only the documents, they follow one another being mutually complementary - this is what his book is notable for. It might be that the author did it that monotonous not by accident; recurrence of the subjects really tires; a man in the street would never come through it… Wasn't that the way to muddle the church censors up?

If one manages to surmount those obstacles, the book opens the wonderful world of the great country described by the foreigners to a keen reader. Tisengausen provided the extracts from the ancient manuscripts which were saved by a miracle and the past days came alive! Desht-O-Kipchak started to fuss, the steppe was agitated full of the absinth smell. One could even hear the songs having read the notices by Ibn-Battuta.

Collected manuscripts are unique; main force of the book is in their polyphony. For example, Shapfi chronicle is kept in Paris National Library; there is the single copy of it.

Each author, as far as we know, has its own style and methods of working: Tisengausen preferred historical documents. One should simply read this book - read and think about it. Because the travelers wrote what they saw, they had no time for fantasies which are usual for historians; a traveler sees the world in a different way every day, and he has a road to go. The only thing to do is to write.

The first volume of "Collection of Materials Relating to the history of the "Golden Horde" is rather thick; it remained as it was issued by the author. Practically everything "extracted from the Arabian works" is gathered in it. Many pages of the volume are speckled with elegant Arabic characters; interlinear translation is given near. Authenticity of the facts cannot be called into question: the work has been done with academic formalism, any word contained in it can be checked.

"The second volume of the collection, - as it is written in the preface, - will include the extracts from the works by Persian, Tatar and Turkish writers". But one can only guess which of those extracts were crossed out by the Soviet censors and which remained.

Tisengausen's story begins with the chronicle by Ibn al-Asira, the competent person who used to question the eyewitnesses, visit the places of events before he started his difficult story "about the invasion of the Tatars to Muslin countries".

"For several years I objected to announcement of that event, - he begins his joyless story with a real eastern tact, - considering it horrible and having aversion to expound it; I used to start and stop several times. Is it easy for anyone to tell the world about death of Muslins and pleasantly to remember about it?" And then frightful description of invasion into the Middle Asia and all destructions caused by the Tatars to the East is set forth. The trouble was "as a cloud blown by the wind".

Having defeated the Lezghins and conquered Transcaucasia, as it is written in the chronicle, the Tatars turned to the Northern Caucasus where the Alans lived in the foothills. They knew about an unavoidable storm and were ready for it. They entered into the union with the Kipchaks and accepted the battle together. Pressing Tatars - that cloud blown by the wind - could do nothing and in a little while asked for a break…

Here we shall interrupt the story by Ibn al-Asir in order to finally clarify the question - who were the Tatars?

For the West natives ethnic accuracy is of great importance. The Mongols are the Mongols, the Tatars are the Tatars and the Turki are the Turki; one shouldn't mix them up. There's no reason. They are different!

The word "Mongol" is known since X - XI centuries, that is reported by the Mongols themselves. It is not known what that nation was formerly called. Its history was connected with the Turki and Altai, apparently, - neighborhood of two nations cannot leave without a trace. It is very likely that the Turki, having arrived to the steppe from Altai, borrowed certain things from the Mongols - those steppe nomads (Of course they used to communicate earlier. The Mongols wandered to the south of Altai. The tribe ongutam was notable among them. The Chinese called them "the white Tatars"; they were close to the Chinese in appearance and culture. There were also the "black Tatars" who lived in the forests and were different for other cultural traditions… "The Mongols", as we can see, is a complicated subject of ethnography - they are many-sided regardless of similarity in their appearances… But they are not in question now.). They took the lessons of life in the plain… The neighbors!

That was the Mongolian army moving from the Central Asia to the west, although the Turki led the war for the most part: the Turkic speech dominated in the army. But that was the Mongolian army! For example, Baty had 330 000 warriors and only 4000 Mongols among them… There is a secret rule in the world: the army belongs to the one under whose flag it wages a war. The one who pays them, who makes the plans of the conquers, who is defeated or keeps the loots. He is the master.

On this point everything seems to be clear.

And is it correct to call Temuchin a Mongolian? It is another question. Chingis-Khan, they say, had blue eyes and a red beard. He headed the Mongol troops, he waged a war under the Mongolian flag, his victories belong to the Mongolian Empire (By the way, the army of the emperor Napoleon was headed by the marshal Murat, the Kipchak by birth, but nobody has hit upon an idea to call the French the Kipchaks. Although inhabitants of certain provinces of France should be called the Kipchaks who have forgotten their kinship.). So what? His father and mother were the Turki… But when and how has their son turned into the Mongol? Known portraits of the great commander with narrow eyes is nothing more than imagination of the artists - the Mongols paint all the people of the world with narrow eyes. They just cannot do it in a different way.

Here is another question (painful and instructive for the Turki!) - how did Temuchin, who was nicknamed Chingis-Khan appear in the camp of the Mongols? Why did he lead a war against his nation? It seems the answer is obvious and very annoying… By God's will Chingis-Khan was born a genius of the military art, his talent belonged not to him, not to the Turki but to the whole world. Talent of a human is a God's gift. The great commander created his great masterpieces - new battle tactics, new methods of siege of fortresses and other things. Hence are his victories… But could the commander show his talent remaining among the Turki who were fighting between each other? Never! His fellow countrymen would have annihilated him as they have annihilated dozens of less gifted persons. That's why the Turki should be grateful to the Mongols who gave an opportunity for another genius to live… The brilliant neglected by one nation ornamented the crown of another!

Temuchin was recognized as the man of that thousand years. The man of the previous thousand years was another Turki - Attila.

S.M. Solovyev was willing to explain the absurdity with the "Tatar-Mongols", but what he has written didn't clarify most things. "It might be, - Solovyev wrote in XIX century, - someone would reproach me on account of that name which leads to the mixture (bold provided - M.A.) of different nations since the nation known as "the Tatars" nowadays belongs to the Turkish tribe. One cannot deprive the Russian history of the word with which our ancestors called their enslavers; ancient and modern Russian people don't know the Mongols but only the Tatars".

Excellent! That's true. Let the Russian people call their enslavers as they wish. But should the swearing be extended to the Turkic nation which has already suffered from those "Tatars"? Why should the Bulgarian nation and nations of other chaganats of Desht-I-Kipchak be nicknamed and why should other Turkic "nations" be called with those nicknames?

National discord between two suffered nations - the Kipchaks and the Russians - has been rousing in Russia for centuries. National policy which is humiliating for everybody is carried out. One nation is set off against all other ones (And meanwhile Kazan khan was oppressed to a greater extent as compared with Moscow prince under the Mongols. Both, the price and the khan, as we know, bought the right for power from the Great Khan in Sarai-Berk, but in contrast to Moscow prince Kazan khan would never recover the costs… He had no profits due to levy taking.).

It has been forgotten that the Slavs and the Turki are the inhabitants of one country, and the more they hate each other the weaker Russia is. Only a third party can gain advantages on account of hostility - the party that sets on to fight. At first these were the Greeks, and later - many others.

… It is evident from the splendid story by Ibn al-Asir that the Mongols and the Kipchaks - two different nations - faced each other in a battlefield in the Northern Caucasus for the first time!

The break asked by the Mongols was suddenly over for the Alans. Their allies, the Kipchaks, refused to wage a war. "Both of us have the same roots", - said the Mongols having sent the Kipchaks from their army for negotiations. The Caucasian Kipchaks believed them, they accepted the gifts from their brothers and turned round the horses listening to the assurances in everlasting friendship.

As soon as they were out if sight, the Mongols attacked the Alans and easily won the victory. Then they ran after the Kipchaks and attacked them also. "They took twice as much as they have brought them (the Kipchaks)", - the Arabian chronicler reports. So there was blood everywhere…

One would think what was reprehensible about the fact that the Turki refused to lead a fratricidal war? Well, they were deceived by the Mongols, so does it mean anything? But the Russians interpreted that fact being tragic for the Turki just as betrayal of the Kipchaks… Whom did they betray? Themselves?