For any lay consumer of theology in the world conditioned by the Western Christianity, the idea that the pantheon of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit is not a Monotheism is as wild as the Hindu concept of numerous hypostases of the same deity not being a Polytheism. From that perch, in Hindu it is Polytheism, in Christianity it is Monotheism, that simple. The whole charade started with attempts of a few ambitious literate enthusiasts in the sea of illiteracy to classify Jesus. In the process, the ideas of brotherly love and Hebrew Monotheism flew out of window, and were replaced with a trifecta pantheon, and a fire and brimstone. For others, not conditioned on the antiques of the Western Christianity, that rigged hair-splitting does not makes sense, and accordingly all bells and whistles, all scholastic fantasies are irrelevant for a general picture of the omnipotent almighty Creator, and His role in this universe. Neither are understood the corollaries a la “God works in mysterious ways”, “Mayhem, disease, and murder are all by the will of Almighty”, and other uncounted stipulations of that type. Things are much simpler in the Monotheistic world, any hypostases, if any, do not exist as tangible objects, they are only processing means to achieve a desired end, the reward comes in accordance with the deeds during a lifetime, and the type of the reward can't be stipulated. The promises of Paradise, reincarnation, eternal existence, or distribution of terrestrial benefits in situ are expressed hopes, no more. The puzzle of the Early Christianity, with its millennium-long catfights, conclave voting on the will of the Almighty, and word-splitting autopsies of the supernatural, keeps fermenting dissent and institutional retribution, in spite of the Christian winners-written authoritative historical narrative. A look at that narrative, at the development of the Christian institutions, at the theological twists and institutional politics is given in the offered chapter penned by the wonderful narrator and thinker, Dr. M.Adji. The foreword for this chapter is contained in the previous two chapters, not any less fascinating and informative than the offered fragment from the Chapter III.

The M.Adji books are as much poetic as they are informative. His brush is wide, the subject not cluttered with details, instead of taking his audience to wade across a creek, M.Adji lays boulders across it, and invites a reader to hop with him, or to slow down and wade deeper. He gives a perspective, an outline marked by milestones, and opens the gates for perception and reflection. His points may be found unpalatable, they may be ignored, but they can't be dismissed.

A most curious sequence of transformations happened with the western Christianity, it looped an almost a complete circle, ending not that far from its starting point. At the end of the Cathar campaign it seemed that the victory was complete. At least in the heart of the Western Europe. The fire and brimstone were instituted in perpetuity. The turn was for the Eastern Europe. But in the middle of the eternal victory came a debacle of Protestation. For 30 years, the whole Northern Europe fought for its right to deal directly with the Almighty, and no distracting maneuvers and mass immolations could quench that. Christianity had to bend. That minor inflection precipitated a cascade of circular movements, getting closer and closer to the substance of the Arianism, Monotheism, or Tengriism, under whatever name they came. The original Eurasian religion is shedding its provincial scales, and transpires anew as a whole, with brotherly love in place of brimstones. For the coeval observers, things are moving at a snail speed, but a look at the trace shows unwavering trend, not obscured by the minute jags and bends, and projects to a time when the church would get out of the bedroom infatuation, concedes a gender equality for all humans, and a freedom of beliefs.

The M.Adji books are as much poetic as they are informative. His brush is wide, the subject not cluttered with details, instead of taking his audience to wade across a creek, M.Adji lays boulders across it, and invites a reader to hop with him, or to slow down and wade deeper. He gives a perspective, an outline marked by milestones, and opens the gates for perception and reflection. His points may be found unpalatable, they may be ignored, but they can't be dismissed.

* * *

The posting's notes and explanations, added to the text of the author and not noted specially, are highlighted in blue font, shown in (blue italics) in parentheses and in blue boxes.

The Arian Europe

... The other Kipchak descendants protested against Catholicism differently - they fled to the north by clans and families, away from the Church of Rome, beyond the Rhine. The spirit of liberty had lived there since the days of Attila, as evidenced by the historical monuments of the time and by the very campaign of Attila in 435. In the north of Europe, he founded new Khanates.

Those monuments are fairly well preserved, they come in a variety. And they are not silent at all, as is still reputed, these kurgans and stones with runiform inscriptions can be read.

And it's not forgotten, but not really yet read, this folk epic. And of course, the people - the carriers of traditions, or genetic and anthropological “material”, can not be faked. It is located in Lithuania, Poland, Czechia, Germany, Austria, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Luxembourg, Sweden, Norway, Iceland... In a word, within the nations that did not just submit to the Rome, and did not immediately accept Catholicism. For them, for these countries, in the late Middle Ages went on an exhausting war, the Rome with great difficulty overcame there the spirit of freedom.

From the 4th c. a different culture and its politics began emerging there, because there began to be professed another European religion, yet another branch of Monotheism. Not Christian. The scientists named it “Arianism”, it is a unique feature of the Middle Age epoch; once it was a rival to Roman Catholicism and Greek Orthodoxy. Its bright trail is the Protestantism, which continues to define a model of life for millions.

And it is a fruit of the Great Migration, another fruit of the Türkic culture, bestowed by the East to the Europe.

 The Europeans do not know Arianism now, they have forgotten it, call it a paganism. In that unfamiliar word even the experts see a heresy of an Egyptian bishop Arius, which is absolutely wrong. The Northern Europe, her old faith, did not have a slightest relation to Egypt, to the Arius, she lay too far away from the Christian passions that were raging in Constantinople, Alexandria, and Rome starting from the 4th c. It was free from the spirit of the “Greek faith” region, it was an independent territory, which had only a few outward signs of similarity with the religion of the Middle East... They had a common origin!

Here, in the north of Europe, from the time of the Great Migration, also have been learned and also kept the Altai teaching of the God of Heaven, but in a different, not a Christian framing. Them, these emerging traditions, in their own fashion were weaved into the fabric of a new European culture, which was receiving rights to live north of the Rhine and Danube. It was done by the “Germans”, and they did it not by the dictate of Constantinople or Rome. They did it by themselves. At their sole discretion.

Thus, was spawned the unique culture of the Central and Northern Europe. A new one. A European, but a different culture. Hence come the “Arians”, “Aryans”, so the Christian clergy called the “Germans”, “the barbarians”, i.e. the extracts from Altai who settled in Europe and, of course, did not adopt in all its manifestations the alien to them “Greek faith”. They also did not recognize a primacy of Byzantium in politics. Surely, the Christians could not hold the Arians as their coreligionists. On the contrary, they regarded them as enemies. As opponents. As competitors.

The specially created bedlam, that surrounds Arianism in the Church and historical literature, attracts an attention. Two independent and unrelated phenomena of spiritual life are depicted as one. The teaching is conjoined with the bishop Arius, without mentioning that it, this teaching, existed long before the birth of the Arius, for at least five centuries. It was evolving in the communities of the S. Caucasia and the Middle East, and organizationally it coagulated into establishment in the 4th c. of the Armenian, Albanian, Coptic and other churches, which are called “Monophysite”, or Non-Chalcedon Churches.

In Europe, the issue of Arianism is completely different; there, it is associated with a non-recognition of the Christ as a God, and therefore with non-recognition of the “Vicar of Christ”, that is of the Pope. The problem of Arianism became acute there because of the struggle for ideological hegemony of the Church over the “barbarian” peoples (The Türkic people were called Goths, Vandals, Lombards/Langobards, Franks, etc.), among whom that teaching was very influential until the 9th - 10th centuries.

That was the reality. Two warring camps have arisen, the North and the South, that were speaking the same language, but professing different spiritual cultures. Hence, naturally, came up another division into different “peoples”.

Apparently, it must be emphasized that the name “Arians”, or “Aryans”, was not born in Europe and even not in the Middle East. It was known in Tibet, Persia, India still prior to the new era, the name referred to the newcomers from the Altai. In the Tibet, for example, is an area Ariy, where two thousand years ago those same newcomers had settled down. And in the Persia is a province, the current name of which is consonant with the word Germania (Kerman, German) (Kerman is “fortress” in Türkic, it used to be like Ak-Kerman, Kara Kerman, Eski-Kerman etc.), where from the time immemorial, since the Achaemenid Persia, had settled the Türkic people. The Bible also mentions that far eastern country Ariil (In the Biblical version, the part -Il is a popular toponym, it means “country, land”, like Chigil, Mari-el, Il-Ordu, etc.).

In Tuva, for example, is known a royal kurgan Arjan of the 7th - 8th cc. BC, with 70 log chambers with skeletons of horses, weapons, and other funeral inventory. There, perhaps, is the most ancient “imprint” of the culture associated with the Aryans. Precisely to this connection point the name of the kurgan and the archaeological finds. The name “Arjan” literally means “heather”, “juniper”, used for incense and cleansing of evil spirits, it is consonant with the Old Türkic “aryg” (holy, pure, noble). Hence came the tem Aryan.

The European and Asian Aryans had the same totemic symbols, as though copied one from another, it was adji (equilateral iron cross) and mandala (reliquary ark). That was just the way it should have been, those are the signs of the Altai, attributes of the “guardians of the Universe”, the preachers of Monotheism.

Of course, the European Arianism, despite the excessive persistence of the modern theologians, had no relation to Christianity, because it (its traditions!) lived and prospered before the new era, in other words long before the institution of the Christian religion by the Emperor Constantine. Arius, from whom the Arianism is derived, was an extract from the “Indian communities” of the Egypt, hence his “Altai” knowledge. And his non-Egyptian name! It did not exist on the banks of the Nile before the arrival of the Türkic people, but was common in Tibet, India, and in the Kushan Khanate. Among those who were called “Hanifians” or “Nestorians”.

It is stupid to deny Arianism as a separate teaching. Not to see in it the trace of the East, but a conspiracy of some anti-Christian forces, is doubly wrong. What heresy, what conspiracies are advocated if the “Greek faith” during the Arius time was next to nothing. It was not needed to fight it, it was weaker than a fledgling chick. But that the Arians, and not only them, were opponents of the Christians and their rivals, is beyond any doubts. The Arians (like also the later Muslims) defended the purity of the Monotheism, they did not want to recognize anyone above them but the Almighty.

“Priscillians” also may serve as an example, they followed a teaching that was gaining strength in Spain and other southern countries. It was a kind of merger of the Manichaean doctrines, Gnosticism, and local beliefs. Their teaching was primarily aimed against the Christians, but it had a flavor of benefiting the “Persian” politics in Europe. That was its “Trojan horse”. The Christians could not ideologically repulse it, they were not knowledgeable enough. The theological dispute was resolved in a secular court in 384, the Priscillians were accused of magic and preaching a moral turpitude, which were punishable by death.

Such was their truth. The Arians lived with it. Steadfastness in faith, spiritual purity made them and their culture unique and peculiar.

A great authority among the Arians enjoyed Ulfilas (311 - 383) (aka Wulfila, Ulphilas, Orphila), one of the founders of that religion in Europe, its patriarch. At least we know that he accomplished the same spiritual deed as did his contemporaries, St. Jerome, Augustine and other “doctors” of the Catholic Church. They grew and studied in the same cultural milieu. Ulfilas gave his Arians his “Vulgate”, i.e. a non-Christian Bible. Apparently, it was, like at the Catholics, a translation of the Türkic liturgical book, but with different comments. There, for example, was no Book of Kings, which describes the military exploits of biblical characters; apparently those exploits, were familiar to the Goths from other sources... That “incomplete” text then underlain the base of the Arian teaching, which was gaining strength in the northern Europe.

Catholicism and Arianism seems to have been born at the same time, they grew up as twins. They were fed from one hand and the same food...

That “Northern” Bible no longer exists, as does not exist Arianism, the papal Inquisition had decided their fate, but are remaining some fragments and comments “Skeirihs” to that Bible, a very strange document. It is mentioned in the book “Christianity at the Goths”, published over a hundred years ago. Who was the author of those comments is unclear, bur the author of the book drew attention to the abundance of “words and expressions almost alien to the Gothic translation of [the Bible]”. There is clearly some kind of unsolved mystery... Apparently, like in Persia, Byzantium, and Armenia, in the Northern Europe was a language of those initiated in the mysteries of religion, it was spoken by the rulers and priests, and was a language of the commoners. Hence, such a striking dissimilarity between the text of the “Skeirihs” and the Bible, and hence the bitter struggle that was waged in northern Europe for the implanting of Arianism: some of the Khans leaned toward to Catholicism, the others, as noted Gibbon, “who were abandoning the reverence to the God of their ancestors, were at once betrayed burned at the stake along with their tents and with their families”.

In essence it was a text that explained the teaching of the Celestial God, as the name implies... if it is translated from the ancient Türkic language.

By the way, the beginning of the Gothic prayer “Our Father” sounded this: “Atta Unsar.”... The word atta meant “at first a head of the family, then a head of the tribe, and served as the stem for the present German expression Adel, i.e. nobility”. If we omit the doubling of consonants, which came with a later tradition, we get a clear Türkic “ata” (father). From that ancient words began the prayer and the roots of the German nobility. It was also the source of the European Arianism, which later was derisively called “paganism” (“paganism” has a nice definition “anyone who does not acknowledge your god”).

It turns out that the tiny “ata”, like a magic mirror, reflects a hidden history of the Germans.

No any less “weird” is an another point: as we know, at the end of the 4th c., between Catholicism and Arianism began an intense competition for developing a “European” ritual for the new worship services. Then the bishop Ambrose wrote the first Christian rhymed hymns, which then were entered into the tradition of the Catholic Church. These hymns were read chantlike, as recorded in the chronicles, they appeared in order to “compete with the Arians” in the the fervency of the ritual.

Historians disagree here over whether Ambrose initiated the European poetry? As counterpoise, are cited the Prudentius' works, who apparently was older, although they lived at the same time. His poems are presented as an example of classical poetry, but with new characters, who joyfully shake off from their feet the dust of the old world... A strange reference, is not it?

If the ancient poetry did not exist, how come it had “old heroes”?.. Especially when the devotees glamorised by the author of “Peristephanon” are not individual heros, but a host that is struggling, suffering, and dying to again triumphantly rise. In essence, the work celebrates the Great Migration of Peoples which came in contact with the Western Europe.

Interesting, is not it? Although the “compete” is not quite a right word, because it refers to the worship ritual of the Arians and Türkic people from the Altai.

Those hymns, by the way, experts credit with the beginning of the European poetry! Those were the first rhymed line that the Latins have heard... But maybe not, not the first. The time has preserved other examples of the Türkic poetry, some of its lines are more than two thousand years old, they carved with runes on the  Altai rocks. They are immortal epitaphs.

Clearly not a trembling hand of a beginner carved, for example, these bright lines:

God made the world of plains and of the heights
For there always spin the days and nights,
For stars to orbit sky with heavenly delights -
There, night forever alternates with day.

God gave the sky the color of turquoise,
A host of jaded stars had plenty to dispose,
Sidereal Libra strung with stars' maltose -
And night perpetually alternates with day.

A mount of the fate careered overhead -
He sparked fire, and enflamed
The herbal world as raging, smoky, red...
And flame is raging still today.

(Hereinafter the translation by A. Prelovsky)
It is not excluded that in the early Middle Ages, the Europeans had heard these verses:

Almighty's generosity is said to be a gem,
The bounty of Lord's is priceless diadem.
And you, my God, are besting any treasures
And you, my God, are greater any measures

The lines did not fade over the centuries, did not lose their beauty... they were simply forgotten.

...Speaking of the formative period of the Catholic Church, should be silenced that the Emperor Valens (364-378), who ruled until the arrival of Theodosius I (379 to 395) to Rome, was a “devoted Arian”? His biographers wrote that the Altai traditions were not alien to him. Moreover, Valens expelled from Rome the partizans of the “Greek faith”, whose could stench he could not stand... This is the real Roman history that does not tolerate falsity.

And it is probably quite appropriate to recall in this regard that the Catholics during Theodosius (379 to 395) and the Arians during Ulfila (311 – 383) performed the rite of initiation into the faith (baptism) the same way - in the baptistery, by a triple immersion into a consecrated water. Both were repeating the ary-alkyn, as taught in Derbent. The Catholics made changes in the Altaic rite only during the time of the Pope Gregory the Great (540 – 604),   one as the Pope notified about that in a letter of 591 of the Bishop Leander of Seville. His letter is preserved.

One might say that Gregory was a last pope of the “Roman world”, he enriched the Catholicity by proclaiming a slogan “authorization and binding”, which, in fact, started a departure from the past social values ​​and adoptation of the new ones, that is, the Türkic values. It was implemented during the Charlemagne era (742 - 814). The Pope Gregory, by the way, wrote his proclamations in “Vulgar Latin”, he knew fairly well the Türkic language. His nickname Dialogist speaks for itself.

History abounds in surprises. Charlemagne (742 - 814) of the Carolingian dynasty, credited with founding of France, unification of medieval Europe, was a Türk according to his genealogy, according to his tamga also a Türk, from a Balt clan. His real name was Charla-mag (Charlemagne), which translates to “call for glory” (çağrı=“call”, -la adj., adv. suffix, maɣ=“glory, fame” > çağrı+la maɣ = “(one) calling (for) glory”; ğ is silent > charla). His name was pretty widespresd.

To conceal the historical truth, Europeans deliberately tinted names of many historical characters with Latin ring, for the events to lose their former nature. Remember, the famous knight Charles the Bold, a Duke of Burgundy, was called Temir (Temeraire) in his lifetime. Similar examples abound. Double names were commonplace in Europe, one of them was in Türkic language... But this is another undeniable mark of the Great Migration.

So, the father of Charlemagne was called Pepin the Short. More precisely, Pippin Der Kurze, which in the Türkic means “Pippin, who became important, respectable”. The name has appeared in 752, when a mayor of the palace became a king... Where the “short” comes from? Hence, by the way, came the Kurfürst “electors”, who by the 13th c. constituted their College in the Holy Roman Empire.

The “reformers” of the truth acted primitively, they were changing one or two letters in the name, and “respectable” turned into “short”, “brave” into “bald”, “divine” into “devil”. and so on. For example,

Robert Great or Divine (Magnificent), the father of William the Conqueror, became Robert the Devil (Devil, Diable), although its name was derived from Divine, i.e. the God of Heaven, stated by an ancient saga.

The Türkic culture was entering the European cities through different gates. It was entering from the north and south. And was taking root...

Still later, that is after the Catholics' capture of the Northern Europe, politicians-theologians picked up for the words “Aryans” and “Arianism” a meaning very remote from the original: then the dead were turned into live, and the live into the dead. That is explainable, the colonization of the East has been started, and the “Türkic trail” in the history of Europe was being destroyed. The Western church became a master of life, it did not need competitors.

And declaring Inquisition, she started an attack on Monotheism.

They wrote the present history, as the victors. in their lips the old words were taking on a new meaning. And the world was turned upside down. In those writings, Türkic people were not finding place for Türkic people, a brother did not see his brother. In the religious frenzy that engulfed the Europe, people were not distinguished by their kinship, but by their religion. It was like an epidemic. Then arose the “nomads”, the “heathen Tatars”, behind whose souls, Catholics asserted, did not lay anything but the wildness and debauchery.

What kind of religion was that? Where was the neighborly love? What kind of Monotheism? A blood brother turned into a fierce enemy just because he was looking differently at the world...

However, the angel in the Heaven also was recording what did the frocked men. From the God's judgment they, the winners, can't escape, they knew that Arianism was not heresy, nor a paganism, but the faith of the Germans. Or rather, the “white faith” of the Altai, to the portrait of which were added touches of the rites, existing at the northern-Europeans (Celts) before the arrival of the Türkic people. That was a religion of the same grade as Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Manichaeism.

The boundary between the Arian and Christian Europe, was of course felt, it divided continent into two different worlds: one a lively and natural, the other cooked-up and snobby. It is black and white. Viewed from the north, the south was dark, viewed from the south dark was the north. The Arians reproached Christians for worshiping three gods, for abandoning Monotheism; those defended as they could with theological abstractions, penned by assiduous “soldiers of Christ”.

The faith, its purity, distinguished the Europe northern from the Europe southern.

From the spiritual contradictions sprang that eternal enmity, that implacable opposition of the “Germans” and their neighbors that did not stop neither in the Middle Ages nor later. This is the history of the King Clovis and Merovingian clan, this is the history of the Geneva County, this is the dozens of other imbued with blood histories of the medieval Europe: the Türkic people by force or cunning were imposing on the Türkic people their own faith, their own truth. And that may be the most striking in their enshrouded history.

In the standoff, the Arian position was more genuine. They were not physically destroying Catholics, on the contrary, in any their city, in any their country, they were giving them their freedom to practice Christianity. And the Catholics operated differently, their mentality of superiority, apparently rooted in their Roman imperial past, was overbaring, and they did not bother with disputes, inevitable in a religious war.

They forged ahead, relying on a bayonet, not on a word.

The feud reached its climax under Charlemagne, who had a feat with the independence of the Arians: at the will of the Pope, he undertook that legendary crusade campaign against the citadel of the Arianism in the northern Europe, and inflicted on Arianism if not a fatal, at least a ruinous wound.

The folks in robes, occupied with correcting the history, know well that from 336, as a religion, Arianism dominated the continent. Because the Emperor Constantine, a founder of the Christian Church, repented of the commited sin, and granted all rights not to the Christianity, but precisely to the Arianism, which was a faith remote from the politics. The Constantine's children concured to Arianism a dominant position in the teaching of the Church that was then forming. These facts are narrated in the Christian encyclopedia. Referring to them, we do not discover anything new. We only repeat what is well-known.

If not for the Theodosius I (379 to 395), a greatest politician, hardly anyone today would have ever heard about the Christ. For the sake of the Catholic doctrene, or rather for the ensconcing of the Türkic hordes in the West, he went against the Constantine decision. The Christianity would have shared the lot of the Priscillianism.

How much tragedy and grief could have been avoided. However, it was not...

When frictions began in Christianity, some Latinized Türkic people girded the belts of happiness, and not wanting to conflict with the clergy, changed the blessed South for the harsh North, to preserve their freedom they were leaving with their whole families. There, to the northern lands, they were bringing their knowledge and skills, for example, horse husbandry and plowing, which the aborigines, naturally, did not know. As they did not know iron production, blacksmithing, construction of brick.

Illustration from Grover S. Krantz, Geographical Development Of European Languages, New York, Peter Lang, 1988, asserted that according to archeological dating, agriculture reached prohibitive Polar areas by about 2500 BC, long before the European religious barbarism. Fig. 10. Neolithic (i.e. farming) expansion from Anatolia. Heavy lines trace the main routes of (presumed) Indo-European spread through Asia Minor and over the central part of Europe. Dates are given at each 200-km unit of progress. (Presumed) Indo-European territory, along with that of the Uralic farmers, is left blank; all other speech areas are stippled. Heavy dashed lines show linguistic divisions where incoming peoples were partially separated by natural barriers.

The Arian Europe was growing up slowly. She did not have the potential and experience of power which had the countries of the former Roman Empire, did not have a such population. Its climate was different. But nevertheless. She possessed natural resources, which Christians did not have, neither the Byzantines, nor the Romans. That substantially changed the political markers, making the northern world attractive.

The deposits of iron ore in the Norland, and the Türkic people, who knew how to smelter it, by the 9th c. laid out the political face of Scandinavia, which became a leader of Arianism.

...When the Altaians first fell in there, there there amalgamated a Union of peoples. They were called Goths. And also the union members were called Vikings, Normans (in the Rus - Varyags), in world history one of the first references of them belongs to 839, then an embassy of the northerners arrived to Constantinople. Those were not novices in politics, not savages wrapped in skins. Their fame was scaring for the Greeks, and at the same time was beckoning. How that could be different, the enemies of the Catholic Rome, who were capturing her colonies in the north of Europe one after the other, and the pope did not even resist. The balance of forces was in favor of the northerners. And everyone felt that.

The Prologue of the “Circle of the Earth” is indicative, it is a book containing some of the Norman saga. According to the Scandinavians, it's a kind of encyclopedia of the Northern Europe, which tells of the legendary times up to the last quarter of the 12th c. The time of the Vikings, asserts the saga, begun after the ruler Frey “was buried in a kurgan in Upssala”, that was a first kurgan in Scandinavia. Before that was the “age of cremation”, when the deceased were cremated. “But after Dan the Proud, a konung of Danes, ordered to pour a kurgan and bury in it in his battle armor together with his horse and all the trappings and various other belongings, many of his descendants started to do the same, and then in the Denmark started an Age of Kurgans, while the Swedes and Norwegians continued the age of cremation”.

To the above should be added: the burial rite is probably the most conservative, it is changed only with the arrival of a new spiritual culture. Precisely from the time when appeared kurgans, in Scandinavia was  clearly demarkated the “presence” of the Altai. Kurgans, horses, deer stones, and other marks of Altai did not appear there on their own.

No less significant is another detail that follows from the “Song of the Nibelungs”, namely the appearance of the title “Kagan”. Hakan, Heagney (хегни) (Heagney reportedly means “forceful” in Gaelic)... This title is known to belong only to a ruler of the Türkic people (First recorded at the Syanbi Mongols, but clearly not a Mongolian title). Of course, it also could not appear in Scandinavia by a chance. The Haakon became a proper name (Like the Khan in the Middle East and South-central Asia; reportedly means “chosen son” in Norse, but in reality “chosen son” is utvalgt sønn).

The Greeks, wishing to be closer to the Normans, were offering them lucrative economic projects, in particular trade, for which was established a route “from the Vikings to the Greeks”... Was being contoured a new political alliance, it did not come about at once. The Norse sagas, in their unique poetic chronicles, tell plenty of the Normans and their life at that time: they are the “kings” of the northern seas, the first discoverers of the lands. They are courageous people. The rulers there went on horseback, from the commoners they were distinguished by their clothes, the high hats trimmed with fox fur, and boots, bestowing on the owner the marks of nobility. Pants. Short kaftan coats... But wait a second, this is a national dress of the Türkic people, only they wore such attire!

Indeed, the other members of the Norman society dressed differently and walked on foot, they were afraid of horses. They were forbidden to ride, as reported by the saga of the Knight Orvar-Odd, he became the first Scandinavian to sit on the horse, it happened at the end of the 5th c. And his attempt was unsuccessful. But the Norman rulers, on the contrary, were bringing their horses on board when sailing out, without them they could not take a step... In the sagas pops up a mass of curious details, which unfortunately did not attract a gaze of ethnographer.

Amazing details... Indeed, how did the steppe animals, the horses, appear in woody Scandinavia in the 5th c.? And what about the rulers, the Khans?

There is clearly were repeating the histories of the Persia, Caucasus, and other regions, where the royal Türkic clans were invited to rule. Perhaps, the same happened there in the North. Unfortunately, other details are unclear, much is still not have been read. Something is attesting in favor of this hypothesis, the arguments “for” clearly prevail. The sagas uncover the past only to the attentive readers, they need to know how to read,  read according to the rules of Altai. Otherwise they would never realize that the word “saga” is Türkic, a very ancient word “savga” (tell the history, narrate).

For example, the Wieland (Wayland) saga paints the life of a blacksmith master, depicting a purely Türkic life. It illuminates a mass of ethnographic details and trivia that can not be fabricated, even the one that “connects” Wieland with Chingiz Khan: both made a wine-drinking cup from the skull of an enemy. That is an ancient Altai custom, known only to the select few.

And in the saga of Sigurd (Siegfried), the signs of Türkic symbology are especially interesting in the tale about the heroes, “Nibelungs”... Page after page the saga describes life where the Türkic people reigned. The wise Altaians were saying in such cases: “attentive listener hears from afar”. And they were absolutely right.

In fact, in Norland settled many Kipchaks. Otherwise, cow  come there appeared deer stones, just like in the Altai? Archaeologists have found that the stones, or rather their pictures and designs at the river Abakan and in Scandinavia are indistinguishable. They are messages, parting instructions to a traveler. You go right - you'd meet such and such, you go left - you'd meet that. The right-left are directional markers: north and south.

The Altaic ornaments (charms, periapts) and dragons decorated the Norman ships. The traits of their new culture are easily detected in the European North. For example, the Altaians, the ancient Germans, and Scandinavians had absolutely the same script. They understood each other without interpreters. How come? Later, their language was called Ancient Danish, but that name tells nothing. Researchers acknowledge that in those days “the differences between the languages ​​of the Scandinavian ethnicities were not perceived”.

The recognition has a great value.

It stimulates a desire to ask, why the “eastern” dragons also are found in abundance on the northerners' jewelry?.. The silent symbols of the Altai are scattered everywhere, and no one understands their language. But they are present! They were not invented.

Recalling that the Normans professed Monotheism, like the Altaians, the dragons and other ancient symbols retreat to the background. Scandinavians called their Supreme God Donar, Dangyr, Thor. And these appellations of the Türkic people to Tengri still have not been forgotten, for example among the Chuvashes, Khakasses and other peoples, custodians of the Altai antiquities. They still pronounce so the name of the Almighty.

The monotheism in the ancient Scandinavia is a historical reality, it appeared overnight, along with newcomer rulers. This is an irrefutable fact!

And what is manifesting, the northern religion “evolved” in the same way as everywhere from the Altai to the Atlantic: the Türkic base, with added something uniquely different from the local beliefs. Saga indicate exactly how into the “biography” of religion are intertwined stories of the local legends. A whole “program” has existed, the result is obvious, and it caused controversy within the scientific community. How the Monotheism appeared on the edge of the Europe? How a religious teaching could evolve there, away from the civilized Rome and Constantinople?

Is this a riddle? Not at all. Serious scientists have always agreed on one thing: the Scandinavian sagas reflect the real historical events... Another matter is how they are interpreted.

For example, a Danish (late Middle Age) historian H. Mallet (Paul Henri Mallet, 1730-1807) linked the emergence of the Normans and their religion with the Roman Empire, because from there, after Pompey's victorious wars, the tribe of the Goths went from the shores of Lake Meotida (Sea of ​​Azov), which resolved to create  in Scandinavia, “in this haven of freedom to create a religion and such people who will someday would be an instrument of its undying thirst for vengeance”.

The thought is of course interesting. But it is absolutely unsubstantiated. It was easily refuted by E. Gibbon, who rightly wondered, could it any tribe to be “an abode of the gods”? Such happens only in myths. Nevertheless, the Mallet's view gained recognition. Although, following an elementary logic, the contradiction is obvious: to preach a religion could only a person familiar with that religion, the subject was Monotheism, which at the Pompey time was not known in the Roman Empire...

The sagas are generously opening one page of the past after another, showing that even the consonance of names Tengri in the Altai and Donar of the ancient Germanic peoples was not a chance coincidence. And not because the Türkic peoples had their own way to pronounce the name of the Tengri – Tengeri, Tegri, Ter, Tura, Dəər, Tigir. The European Türkic people could also pronounce that name their own way. Such speculation is possible, but it changes little.

Here, the weightier is something else, not the pronunciation of the words, but the image of Tengri and Donar! It was the same in the Altai and at the Germanic peoples. Precisely the image! The same with the worship ritual. And this is no coincidence. This is a unity of culture based on the Monotheism. Even if the rest is ignored (the horses, the iron, the clothing, the traditions, and the writing), the unity is present... Arguments can be advanced about the rulers, their clothes, even about the writing, but any dispute is becoming hollow: during the Great Migration the aborigines of the European North distanced from their former religion. They came to know the Celestial God. This is a fact that needs to be accepted.

Over the time, the appellation Donar-Thor yielded to Odin (Vodin, Wotan), who was also called a “northern Mohammed”, was so much common was between the faith of the “Germans” and of the Muslims. This is not surprising, they are branches of the same tree: Monotheism reigned in the East and in north of the Europe. The Celestial God was ruling there.

Of course, not all Scandinavians accepted a belief in the Celestial God, some have showed commendable conservatism, which is again clearly seen in the sagas of the “Terrestrial Circle”. A tale of the Leif Erickson, who in the tenth c. went on a westward voyage on a ship “Grand Dragon”, said that he had brought to Greenland a first priest... Not everybody reacted to his action the same way.

Manifestly, in the European north has never been an institute of clergy, like a the Roman papacy. The faith was spread spontaneously. And in that was the weakness of the Arianism, and on a broader scale, of the “white faith” of Altai, and Islam. In the organization of religion they always lost to the Catholics, who created a brilliant institution of power, a strong, aggressive, tenacious institution. In essence, it was a decisive factor for the victories of the medieval West over its ideological rivals.

Religion of Scandinavians is a culture and time phenomenon, unjustly forgotten in Europe, it was also a union of the spiritual traditions of the East and the West. So, in concordance, was receiving a right to life an alternative to the Christianity (both the Greek and the Roman Catholic), so in harmony was evolving a new etiology, which the Nordic peoples did not know before... This is an absolutely unknowable process, the birth of a new culture. Everything seems to be understandable in it, and nothing is clear.

Perhaps, in the West one undisputable counterweight to Catholicism, other than the “Greek faith”, was another movement; however, it is little studied. with The papal censorship was obstructing!

Precisely the censorship. For the “Saga of Ynglings” tells where Odin came from - from the Asia, from the country lying to the east of the Don (Tanais). He was not a God, but a messenger of the Celestial God, he was a prophet that taught the northerners the arts that “the people have owned since”. Odin, like the Indian Nagas, had a transformation power: “...his body lay as if he was sleeping or dead, and at that time he was a bird or a beast, a fish or a dragon, and in an instant he ferried to a distant country on his affairs or for affairs of other people”... It is known that this highest art have mastered only the Altai Kam, it is evidenced by the folk epic.

Odin introduced in the North the laws the Türkic people had. Because he came from a country “lying south of the Great Sweden”, it was called “the land of the Türkic people”, this is written in the saga... And incidentally, with that line begins the history of the Rus.

The enmity between North and South had its reasons. The aversion of the “Germans” toward Catholics was well grounded, they differently saw the world, they differently wanted to live in it. Everyone saw his own sun in the sky... Facts supporting that is more than enough, in the late twentieth c. they inspired a famous Norwegian explorer Thor Heyerdahl on the road, to seek the ancestral homeland of the Scandinavians. His expeditions to the Azerbaijan and Don were only feelers to the cultural treasures of the Altai. He Knowing poorly about the Great Migration, he planned itineraries for his expeditions built on intuition, not on a knowledge, and therefore he did not reach the desired goal, to the native Altaian hearth. But the direction he chose was right, toward the Türkic world.

Heyerdahl asserted: Scandinavia has “foreign roots”. But he failed to prove that, the scientist simply did not have enough time.

About her “foreign origin” most convincingly says Yggdrasil, a symbol without which is impossible to understand the culture of the northerners. It is  a giant ash tree, a  “backbone” of the universe. The tree of Life. In the minds of the Arians, Yggdrasil  defined the vertical projection of the existence, there bridged together different worlds (earth, heaven, underworld), depicting a picture not only of the integrity, but also of a measure of the raw beauty. That is the essence, the truth of folk the mythology. An etalon of a life.

The Scandinavian Yggdrasil joined together nine different worlds: its roots sheltered dragon Nidhogg and snakes, deers headed by Eyktyurmir nibbled middle leaves, on top of the tree sat a wise griffon with a faded hawk Vedrfelnir. The water of a spring Mimir fed the tree of life roots, from where began  a fate of each person.

An evergreen tree exuded a sacred mead like an amber resin, its specks housed talents and skills (“honey of poetry” comes from there!).

The pages of the sagas focus on the life-giving tree, which among other matters, gave Odin to the Northern Europe - the Celestial God: the sagas “Elder Edda” and “Younger Edda” are convincing and emphatic. Through cognition of the tree of life is possible to understand how the Almighty came into the world of the North... In the tree of life Scandinavian saw an image of an equilateral cross, it was a symbol of their pre-Christian culture, as demonstrated by the national flags. And of course the art ornaments.

Then, of the same also tell the pictures on the famous runic stone on Isle of Man (England). There, in a former Norman colony, in writing - with the runes! - are recorded thoughts about ​​the tree of life... Awesomely, it was the same as they are in the Altai. Up to the small details. Only the characters in the Altai were called differently, in their own way.

Without the tree of life, once the culture of the East was unthinkable. And of the West.

This is perhaps the brightest and the most characteristic feature (after the faith, of course), it allows to assert the unity of human culture, of its indivisibility into the East and West. For no one can tell, and no one can show where begins one and ends the other. After the Great Migration of Peoples, the world became a different world - whole: it has accepted the Tengri religion, that is Monotheism. And painted it with its own colors, in every area the shades of the faith are unique. Like the people there.

True, Arianism is now known very little in Europe. But all that did exist... What if that religion did not perish? What if the Protestants continued the Arian tradition? Are they their descendants? Partially, they are. Protestantism is a spiritual world that sheltered in the shadow of Christianity. Strict and solid, with a past and future. They are not “breakaway” Catholics, as they are labeled, they have their distinct past, which the Catholics did not have.

During Middle Ages the Northern Europe had a cheekbone face... It was pure as the Altai sky. And although it was blackguarded, it did not get lost. Not at all.

The Arians, entangled by the floury networks of the papal politics, became Catholics, that happened at the waning of the Middle Ages, differently in different countries. They were coerced to abandon the faith of their ancestors and to adopt Christ, and with him the rule of the Pope. All that did happen... But in the new papal household a peace did not stay for long. A distinct culture could not just die away in the cold Roman dungeons, it had to find its own expression. And it did find that expression. Therefore it had endured.

The Catholics-northerners had gathered a strength and carried out a Reformation in the Western Church, quivering it to its foundations.

The “heresy” of the Bogomils, Cathars, and Albigensians was continued in the north, in England, perhaps there it achieved a success for the first time. And the that was a merit of William of Ockham (1285-1349) and John Wycliffe (1320-1384), the great theologians, philosophers and humanists of the Middle Ages. First among the Christians they were were able to scientifically express what was secretly held in the souls of generations of the European Türks, the righteousness of the “white faith”. Their thoughts were distinct by utmost clarity and appeal.

“The Earthen activity of every human”, including monarchs and the pope, must be a device to serve God according to the spirit and letter of the Holy Scriptures. They formulated this idea, which ignited indignation of Rome. Their creativity was not the “rural pipe dreams” of their predecessors, to fight with which was no need, it had an impact on Jan Hus, Martin Luther, and other active partisans of a spiritual purity in the West.

The Church had nothing to offer in return besides the fires of the Inquisition, but the fires were already not decisive, they could change nothing...Through the efforts of the “heretics”, the Reformation  became inevitable.

In a word, they gained recognition of the views of their pastors. Not of the Pope's pastors! That was a step towards a freedom of religion, it was a success. But the end of the tunnel came only in the 16th c.

The protest would undoubtedly unite the northern Türks sooner or later, then they still remembered their unity, the roots of their old culture, but that did not happen. The clergy in Rome turned out to be stronger and more convolved. Hence they only became “Protestants”, they did not express their ethnic kinship, they turned into a sidestream of the Catholicism, although that is not quite so. The protest was born not in the loins of the Western Church, as assert the theologians, it was a popular protest. The Reformation has has brought it to the surface, it made the secret explicit. But not for long.

The Reformation broke the chain of authorities, which prevented prudes to think in their own way, and slaves to express what they think. E. Gibbon wrote: “From that moment, the Popes, the Fathers of the Church, and the Churches Councils stopped playing the role of supreme and infallible judges over the whole world, and every Christian has learned not to recognize any other law but the Scriptures, and no other interpreters of the Scripture but his own conscience”.

The Reformation was a breakthrough into a new cultural niche... Or a return to the old one? With the Protestants, to the north of the Europe returned the spiritual traditions of the Altai.

When in the Reformation the i's were dotted, it satisfied everybody. The Pope received political powers in the West, and the Protestants received a “white faith”, albeit slightly modified. What was that? A deal? A shrewdness? That is probable. But they brought to the West peace and harmony.

The very same Calvinists and Lutherans, the core of the Protestants, retained in Christ the divine pantheon, but they were allowed to revive the rituals and congregations as they were before the adoption of the Christianity. They remained Christians, while becoming Arians once again. Or almost Arians. The Protestants reject middlemen between the God and the man, in a word, the papal Church and its clergy. Like the ancient Türks, they hold act for a core of the behavior of the believer. They discarded idolization of holy relics, considering them to be manifestations of primitivism. They abandoned the monasticism, which according to the Altai statutes is inconsistent with the Church... In a word, they continued the traditions of Arianism without advertising them...

Is not that a win-win deal?

Having become Catholics, they did not take on the Latin, as had to do the Catholics, and with admirable tenacity defended the Gothic script, left for them by the patriarch Ulfila. That script became a “national” script, an experienced person would see in it the unparalleled shape of the ancient Germanic runes. And he was secretly proud of his unexpected discovery. The Roman Pope, with his ubiquitous monks, was also powerless here: he could do anything, even to lull people's memory, but he could not deprive them of their ancestors, and thus imbue on them his version of the righteousness and beauty.

Arianism once gathered a part of Germans into a (Norman) nation, but it also divided them. Since then, the “Germans” remained different. The Swedes, Norwegians, Finns, Danes, and Icelanders are fingers of the same hand, people of a single ethnic group, in the 11th c. they accepted Catholicism, in the 16th c. they accepted Protestantism, and split into small communities.

Protestantism did not remind them about Odin, of the tree of life. Finally, of the spirit of their ancestors. The sagas lived on their own, the people were apart from them... The echo of the gap in the culture is reflected in the “Saga of Olave's son, Trygve”. It has an episode, where Odin, in a form of a one-eyed old man, offered the hero to eat a chunk of horsemeat, and with that to recall the past. The Catholics are known to prohibit segregationists to eat horse meat or drink kumis, calling this food “the essence of paganism”... Memories of the past have been unwelcome to the Pope, who was dividing to rule. The Protestant clergy kept the same views.

The cult of horse, that distinguished Germans, belonged to the past along with the Arians. Although as late as the “Saga of Haakon The Good ” (Haakon Haraldsson, c. 920–961, third king of Norway) narrated about jolly feasts, where “was slaughtered various cattle, and the horses”. According to the saga, that was a glorious time.

Certainly, people still feel now the past “tribal” unity, without having an explanations for that, although the reasons are obvious, they are in the forgotten past, reminded by the entire Scandinavian art, which preserved the spirit of the time. Expressive, for example, is the so-called skaldic poetry, almost sacred and similar to the poetry of the troubadours, of the same style! The same mystery! Just reading the poems reminds the past.

But how to do that? No one can translate into modern language and understand those ancient lines from that lost time...

Who knows, maybe the name of the Finnish city of Turku, formerly called Abo (Abai), is the key to the mysteries of Arianism? The toponymy is a comprehensive science, with it started not a single historic discovery. For the North, this geographical name is mighty uncommon... It, like the skaldic poetry, has double, deep, and hidden substance.

Belgium and the Belgians are distinguished by “genetic”misunderstanding, they also are the Arians once conquered by the Roman Catholics. Belgium is populated by two people, the Flemish and the Walloons, they were not filiated neither by time nor by the Catholicism. The Flemish ancestors are the Türks, the warriors of Attila, they came from the Altai in the 4th-5th c., their national dress, customs, holidays, crafts and wares, decorations with trimmed fox fur, their kitchen where garlic does not take a last place, the bath... all the “Altaian”. Especially such are the patterns and ornaments, still visible in the Flemish countryside, the roofs of the houses always feature a horse or a swan.

The church weaned Flemings from their native language somewhere in the 15th c. They no longer speak the Türkic language, but still remember certain words and phrases, remember that they had their own language. And this “Flemish” language could revolutionize the Turkology, while for now it is a no man's relic, to which are grafted foreign roots.

And the “Arian” history of Denmark and the Netherlands turned out to have been written in Türkic runes - on the rocks, according to the Altai rules. There also, Catholicism was secured by the end of the Middle Ages. In the 13th c., the Grand Inquisitor Dominic was struck by “a resemblance of the far-away Denmark with the heathen Kumans”, that is, with the Türks of the Dasht-i-Kipchak, and demanded re-baptize this “horrible country” that rejected Catholicism... But nevertheless, the sun would return sometime to the Danish sky. What is there to wonder, if the saga report that this people came from the river Don and was called Danes.

Draws attention to the fact that by the 14th c. Europe, the runes were completely superseded by the Latin alphabet, becoming a lot of the European periphery. In the countryside, they lasted much longer. In the 16th c. the runes became an object of interest of the Scandinavian intellectuals, then of the Germany, where after the Reformation it was recalled that their Gothic Bible was written in runes. By the second half of the 19th c. the “Old Germanic” runes gained “nationality”, for example, the scientists started talking of the Old English, Sekler, and other graphical recording systems, which allegedly distinguished the early Middle Ages of these countries.

Very revealing is the E. Weber's book “Runic art”, does not even mention the Altai (Orkhon-Enisei) runes, the antiquity of which exceeds the age of any European monument. The author have not seen, and did not try to see, any runes' history beyond the Europe... Regrettably, the “German idea”, and likewise any other nationalistic idea, became a mainstream in the study of the runes in the West. With such elemental device politicians build up the histories of their countries, adding national identity to the history. And... sinned against the truth.

Precisely for them, for the politicians, was composed an epitaph on the Sparlosa-stenen grave of the 9th c.: “And that, who would deface these carvings, let him be an outcast, mired in perversion, known to everybody and everyone”. Once Scandinavians knew that the “defacement of the runes” is injurious to the deceased, then that had been forgotten. Like also were forgotten the other Altai rules. They themselves turned the glory of their ancestors into their own ingloriousness.

The Dutch and Flemish people remember of their kinship, and remember something about the past, but they can not explain its origins. They have forgotten of Attila, of Arianism, and of themselves. There the horse meat is not eaten, kumis not drunk. The kurgans are looked at as to the “barbaric” savagery... However, they still have a lot in common with what had their ancestors, for example the famous kermises, which attract visitors from all around. What is that? Translated from the Flemish, it is “fair”. But that fair, with the essence conveyed by the Türkic word “kerme” (carnival) that also includes bazaar, with competitions of wrestlers and poets, with jugglers and jesters, with horseraces and masquerade. The one where trade is not important... In short, a folk holiday.

The Flemings had another holiday, the most important holiday of the year, it falls on the middle of winter, and was called Yule (aka Yuletide, “Yule time”). That was the day, when the darkness began to wane... after Christianization it was renamed Christmas, and the etymology of the word “Yule”, which has survived in the Germanic languages​, was pronounced to be unknown. Forgotten! However, this is not the case. The exact name of the holiday is “Yule Tengri”, which in Türkic means “God of Fate”. That was a spruce tree holiday, then the spruce tree was decorated, were danced circle dances, exchanged gifts... Spruce points a way to the Heaven, and the tree is still honored in the Altai.

The emblem of Holland, tulips, is also there for all to see. But that it is a steppe flower that blooms first in the steppe, know tiny few. Whence did it come to the European North? Maybe the tulip (a “Khan Flower” for the Türks) reminds the Dutch about something remote? Without a past, the people are orphans. A symbol, like a homeland, is not invented and is not chosen, people are born with it, it is a divine gospel, heard only by its own, the kindred folks. Anything else pales next to it...

Having forgotten their ancestors, people get into gratuitous arguments, for example, about the Ruses and other ostensive peoples. The ignorance conducts astray. But what's the need to start a dispute without considering, what in the Scandinavia was considered the “Rus” was? And the Rus there was a name for the seaboard near Stockholm.

The Normans also called with the same word their colonies on the other side of the Baltic Sea, they did it due to their old Türkic habit of giving old names to the new acquisitions. In the Dasht-i -Kipchak it was everywhere, the geographic names were repeated quite often, they were the clichés to depict a particular type of locality. The White Rus, Kievan Rus and other “Ruses” were becoming the mainstays of the Arianism in the northeast of Europe, the vassals of the Normans in a course of planting a new European culture, which competed with Christianity and which nowadays is improper to be mentioned.

In Russia, that was first and seemingly the last mentioned by V.N.Tatischev. His “Gordoriki” and “Huni” is the “land between Lake Ladoga and Lake Peipus, or Chud, lakes, where the main city was Aldenburg” (Altynbur?). The first Russian history did not hide these toponyms, they ringed right, like the features of the culture that stood behind them. However, later historians turned out to be more liberal in their endeavors... The toponyms, these important details of the past, were ignored.

And the “Ruses”, before the arrival of the Türks to the Europe, turn out to inhabit... Altai,  as reported in the book “Collection of the Türkic dialects” of the medieval scholar Mahmud Kashgari, a recognized expert of the ancient Türkic world. The “Ruses” were called the rowers, that is, those who “lived of a paddle”, was engaged in this difficult occupation. And Mahmud Kashgari emphasized that this word is “ethnic”.

In that word, or rather in the phenomenon that stands behind it, is observed an interesting transition: in the eyes of the rest of the Türks, the Normans turned into “Ruses”, because they lived of the oars, and by that differed from the tribesmen. Yes, they were taking their horses onboard, yes, on the land they went only on horseback. So what?.. They buried in kurgans together with the deceased not a horse, but a shallop, calling it a “water horse”! Of that can be found in the “Saga of Ynglings” where are mentioned kurgans in the Thun, Gokstad, and the most wonderful of them, in the Oseberg. They, these kurgans of the 9th c., attest of many things...

Then the word “Rus” was implanted with a new meaning, it was separated from Scandinavia, linked with some other people. However, the toponym Gardariki, or Garda, found in the sagas of the 10th - 11th c., belonged to the Black Russia, to its capital Holmgard, later renamed Novgorod. There, at the head were those who are now called Swedes, and then were called Ruses. Take the same “Saga of Olaf Tryggvi's Son” that's where are the answers to the questions about the early history of the Rus.

Olav called himself Ali, he was a descendant of the Norwegian konungs, was brought up at the konung Valdamar in Gardariki, the same man Valdamar who is known in Russia as the Kiev Prince Vladimir the Red Sun, a Baptizer of the Rus. The “Saga of Olaf ”... abounds with details on the Türkic way of life, which are now attributed to the Slavs, it mentions kanly (blood feud), cites other adats (common law, prescriptions). There, in the sagas, is even described how and to whom was passed the throne (Oder of Succession), how were compiled genealogies of the rulers, how they were sacrificed to ensure the prosperity of the people... All these are purely Altaian traditions. In the Altai, a king was regarded as a carrier of the sacred beginning.

...In autumn of the year 865... was conceived the “English Rus”, where also collided Arianism and Catholicism. And they also did not wed.

The Norman campaign in England rang as a challenge to Rome. After all, according to the rule that ascend to the beginning of the Empire, the lands west of the Rhine were considered as the Roman lands, there authority of the pope was recognized immediately, there Catholics dominated unchallenged since the time of Brunnhilde. And Scandinavians with their audacious invasion were starting a religious war, it was important for them to prove their presence on the continent. And thus, and in the geopolitics.

Their troops quietly landed on the misty islands, they were headed by two brothers, two sons of the glorious Ragnar nicknamed Leather Pants. And the first thing that made ​​the brothers in England, got horses. About them tells the Icelandic “Saga of Ragnar the Hairy-breeches (Leather Pants?)” (Ragnar Loðbrók) unedited chronocle... Of course, started a religious war. Then, divided was not the land.

Possibly, the English invited the Normans, this suggestion is by no means unwarranted. Behind it stands a sequence of events.

In England, where aristocracy adopted Catholicism in 597, endured an interest in Arianism, and the Normans subtly felt it. On the old religion of the English tell the now remaining there chapels. Their rite is different from that of the Church, that is, of the Catholic Church, but is such as had the Norman Arians. And the Türks of Altai. For centuries, the people of England go to the Church and to the Chapel. In the morning to one, in the evening to another.

There are two altars, they are revered, it is a feature of the secretive Englishmen.

Loyalty to tradition kept in English a faith to the ancestors (this is not the case with the Scots and Welsh people). With the beginning of the Reformation appeared the Anglican Church, an institution that joined two beginnings, the Catholic and Arian... That is the essence of the Anglican Church. The Arians there yielded to the Catholics, moved into their shadow. Because they did not have a church organization - the papacy, they did not conjure their politics, their communities lived separately, acted on the impulses of the souls. And they always came out shortchanged... Such is the Monotheism. A community was entitled to one “professional” priest. That's it. A shepherd, who monitored the conformity of the rite, the morals of the parishioners...

Much distinguished the Catholic North from the South. There in the North, the clergy did not know a blinding splendor, almost mandatory for the papal domicile, there lived the modesty of Altai, its calm customs. They endured at the Protestants of England. Next to the low-key temples stood rich Catholic cathedrals... On the Isles, “everyone reads his own Bible”, reads it in his own way, that is the rule of the Anglican Church. As in old, still not all recognize a mediator between them and the Heavenly God, do not trust the secrets of confession and absolution to the mortals.

Is this not a classical conservatism?

The Isle life could not fail to bear on the behavior of the English, the country lived for long in the space of two worlds, the Catholic and Arian, harboring the pressure of one, then of the other. The genealogy of the first kings is a proof for that, they were relatives of the Scandinavian kings. And they were also dispatched in case of failure... Here too, everything was like in the Altai, as describes the “Saga of Ynglings”.

For example, in 1066, after the Norman invasion, the pope forced ​​the English aristocracy to switch to the Frankish language, for almost three hundred years it was an official language of the state. But the common people, against the will of the Pope, spoke their native language. Was the hatred of the English toward the French conceived at that time? And it becomes clear, why the British crown broke with the papacy one of the first in Europe. Henry I and Henry II went not against religion, but against the Pope, who was collecting their tribute. British Suddenly, the obnoxious foreigners, sent by the Pope, who owned the country's economy and earned much more than the English crown, became unpalatable.

This is an important point for the historian. The arrival of the Normans in England joins broadened the Türkic forces there: to the Anglo-Saxons joined the horde from Scandinavia. In the Türkic hands laid the secular power, and they began protesting against the Papal colonization of the islands.

England still keeps the spirit of that past. Take, for example, the finds from the Sutton Hoo burial kurgans in Suffolk, they have a trace of Altai in every little object. However, comparing these findings with the Altai samples is not conventional in England. Although the famous “animal style” distinguishes precisely the Altai culture, which traveled around the world together with the Great Migration of Peoples and the Türks. Its footprint is even cast in the medieval English parliament.

Aristocrats in assemblies sat on the sacks of sheep wool. These were not just sacks of sheep wool, but the symbols of power in the old England. Let it not be found offensive, but the aristocratic title “Baron” came from the Türkic baran for the “ram” - this docile animal was held as a measure of wealth. If a person had more than a tma (ten thousand) of sheep, he was called “bai” or “baryn” (possessor of everything), he was among the noble people who were allowed to sit on a sack of sheep wool near the Khan.

They, the barons with sacks of wool, became the first vassals of the king, his subjects. Significantly, at the meetings of the Parliament, they sat not rows, but around the center. Like in the Altai. In Türkic, the “Baron” is also a “gentleman”.

And the “confusing” British money are also an echo of the forgotten past. Nothing is missing. Their shilling comes from “sheleg” (in Türkic “non-ambulant”, unconvertible, unexchangeable coin), it is valued of twelve small, convertible, or ambulant coins. Penny comes from “peneg” meaning “small coin”. Sterling, the unit of weight currency, in Türkic is “sytyr” or “sytyrlig”, and amounts to twenty shelegs. The conservative English retained everything, proud of their ancient traditions. And for that, our thanks to God.

The similarity of the Türkic “manat” and the English “money” only reinforces the observation: both are “money” . This is a bottomless theme... When appeared the first money? Where? Why on one side of the ancient coins was minted a profile of the king, the anointed by the God, and on the other side an equilateral cross? Or some other celestial symbol?

Maybe an image of a silver penny of Offa would dispel doubts? On the coin, the oldest in England!, are Türkic runes. Such, it turns out, at the end of the 8th c. was the English script, such were their coins. These old money are the exhibits of the British Museum in London, and they are in the historical reference books, albums, but for some reason they were always looked upon with wrong eyes...

 

The difference between the “Slavic” (or “Russian”) runes and “Germanic” runes is that the  “Germanic” runes were not wiped out totally. In the “Slavic” schools children are told that the Slavs had their own script, and that was a runiform script. However, nowhere can be found even a single photograph of a single “Slavic” runic document. The only drummed-up sensation is a “Veles Book” consisting of four unreadable images of dubious provenance and tons of enthusiastic “readings”. However, nowhere can be found even a single photograph of a single “Slavic” runic document. The only drummed-up sensation is a “Veles Book” consisting of four unreadable images of dubious provenance and tons of enthusiastic “readings”. In the “Germanic” schools children are told that the Germanic people had their own runic script, and that its connections with the Türkic runiform script is a matter of futile speculations. There are three types, Elder Futhark, Younger Futhork, and Medieval (Latinized) Futhark, and numerous “national” subtypes; the texts underwent different stages of banishment, which extend to the present by the forces of inertia, tradition, and prejudice. The inertia part is predicated on the sole knowledge of the runic lettering as the Germanic runic script, prior to the discovery and decipherment of the Orkhon alphabet in 1900s, a period of 1500 years, and the pride that comes with being a first and only. Long enough to get ingrained in all historical works, hence the tradition. Nowhere the Germanic runic script became a significant part of the historical narrative. A few of inscriptions were successfully read in Türkic using the widely known Orkhon alphabet, but their Türkic origin, inconsistent with the ongoing historical notions, remain uncorroborated and thoroughly disagreed. In favor of the Türkic origin attest these factors: 1. Amazing graphical congruence of the Türkic and Germanic runes (not the phonetical congruence): (sited in: http://www.sunnyway.com/runes/origins.html, bibliography in Primitive Futhark ) 2. In the early centuries of our era, Central and Eastern Europe had few varieties of the Türkic alphabet; the western and Middle Asian forms differ from the Orkhon script, and have better chances to be prototypes for the Germanic Elder Futhark. See Codex of Inscriptions Index, S.Baichorov Alphabet Table, Kyzlasov Alphabet Table, Mukhamadiev Alphabet Table 3. Gothic tribes occupied Alanian territories in the N.Pontic, enabling them to pick up the Middle Asian script. See Issyk Inscription, Achiktash, Isfar 4. In the 1st-2nd cc. AD Alans occupied a prominent position in the Eastern Europe, Roman Empire was paying Alans an annual tribute starting from 128 AD, prior to the Gothic migration. By 232 Goths were allied with Alans. 5. In 360, Huns supplanted Alans in the N.Pontic, and possibly brought along their own runiform script, possibly different from the Alan script. 6. Norse sagas state the As presence in Scandinavia, Celts in continental Europe were neighboring Türkic Sarmats-Vandals prior to the Germanic migration to the continent and their supplanting the Celtic tribes. 7. The number of the early Turkic lexical and morphological units in English specifically, and in Germanic generally, is counted in hundreds, with derivatives in thousands. People who amalgamated their language with Turkic-less English and Germanic could have shared their alphabet too. 8. A brush-off and ignore it attitude is a clownage, not science. A whole computer industry originated from a study of a tiny notch on an otherwise linear semiconductor graph. That “abnormality” did not fit expectations, and that was precisely the reason why scientists studied it The few surviving runiform inscriptions in the territories under the Russian footprint survived solely with a help of local enthusiasts or because they were carved on the mortar side of the stone blocks, and when the archeologists discovered them, a local educated teacher explained to the archeologists that these are not incidental scratches, but the ancient Türkic inscriptions (See Codex of Inscriptions Index, Kuban Script). Poorly studied and systemized, they are complemented by few other inscriptions in Bulgaria, Rumania, Poland, and Hungary. Turkologists successfully read many of them.

A gold coin weighing 72 kernels (grains) of barley was called “mark” (mancus), it was worth 9 shelegs (shelyags)... And that is also known.

There are traces of Arianism in Iceland and Greenland, they were thoroughly “overlooked” by the science. The runic monuments, of course, were not really explored, even though they attest the boundaries of the Great Migration of Peoples. These are the boundaries of the Türkic world. However, there are other sources of information confirming the geography of the medieval Europe. For example, the ethnic history of Iceland is known from the “Book of Settlements” (Landnámabók). It is a saga, it is about how 400 settlers (435 men) in the 9th c. established on the banks of the ice-free, the world's northernmost rivers the first chutors (khutors, small hamlets), precisely the chutors (from the Türkic otar!), their names have been preserved.

The core of the settlers consisted of the Norman rulers and Celtic and Briton slaves. The name “Iceland” was probably coined by one of the rulers.

It is betrayed by the part “isi-”, in Türkic it is “to become warm”, i.e. it is the “Warm Land”. Why not? The supposition of “Ice Land” is not convincing for Iceland: in the northern ocean ice islands are a ton, but a warm island is only one. There, near the town of Akureyri, grass is green year-round, grow flowers. The island was found in the 9th c. by the Normans, they were surprised with its warm climate, it was an eternal summer by the Arctic Circle. Is it not it amazing? Hence the “warm” title.

The endonym of the Icelanders sounds “islendingar”. The presence of Tengri - Dangyr is visible to a naked eye (isi- + land + dingar > islendingar). These were people of the Altai faith!

And what about the national flag of Iceland? Is it not a miracle? The flag with a heavenly cross and two shlyk bonnet hats (Shlyk is “hat, headdress” in Türkic, traditionally envisioned as a bonnet hat, a traditional Türkic hat). This is a banner “tug”, under such banner fought Attila, under such banner were joining a battle the Normans led by the Türkic leaders, and the ancient Altaians, and the troops of the Chingis Khan... It is a miracle in front of everyone's eyes. It right next to us... What, what more words are need to be added the to recognize the real as a reality?

Maybe the symbols of the Türkic royal dynasty on the Iceland's coat of arms: the dragon (lung), eagle (kushan ) and bull (oguz)?

Or, perhaps, that the honor dish for the distinguished guests among the Icelanders-northerners is a head of a ram? Or that not scared by the Church bans, they have drank and keep drinking kumis (fermented mare milk) and ayran (diluted fermented mare milk, yogurt), have eaten and keep eating kyzy (horsemeat sausage), have herded and are grazing sheep, have matted and are matting felt, have bred and are breeding horses, have enjoyed and are enjoying the horse meat? Perhaps should be added that Icelandic language has sonorous Türkic expressions: “Ak-kür-eyri” for example? Or that kinship there is structured on the Altaian mode, with division into tuhums (broadly extended families), with addition of the father's name to the name of the son, instead of surnames? Take for example the name Eyrikson, here the ending “son” in the ancient Türkic (soŋ, son_g, ) means “offspring, progeny”... No, any example pales in comparison with the “tug” (flag, banner, standard).

Tug is a place where dwells the Türkic spirit, it is lost everywhere, but not in the Iceland... And it also survived in the Denmark!

The Icelandic medieval monuments were encountered even in the United States (Minnesota). In fact, they have repeatedly declared to be fakes, these finds were too unexpected. But sooner or later, the facts eventually have to be studied, to learn about the Vinlend country, discovered by Leif Erikson  in 1000. So states the already mentioned Icelandic saga.

Leif was a son of Erik the Red, a famous Norman. Along with him on a voyage to the West left Turok (Tyrker), a nondescript man with a freckled face, steep forehead, and short legs. He knew the language of “the Germans” (in other words, he was fluent in Türkic language), he loved tinkering, was well versed in sciences. In America, this Turok (Tyrker) found a wild grapevine (Normans have not heard of it), and it was him who gave the name to the new country - Vinland.

Obviously, is required a careful, and most importantly, a tranquil study of the Scandinavian names. The Türkic names are often discerned there. Or a combinations of the names and the words, apparently the nicknames. The name Eric belongs to that type, translated from the ancient Türkic it means “power” (erk “strength, will, might, power”). His name (its variations) was popular among “Germans”, and later Catholics equated it with the word “king” (rex, rege, regis, regem). The rex, however, is directly connected with totally another ancient Türkic word, “aryg”, from which originated the “noble Aryans” (aryg/arïɣ “noble, honorable; flawless, faultless; clean, unpolluted, pure”).

It can't be excluded that Erik is a European pronunciation of the word “Aryan”. In the later renditions, it was deliberately distorted, like for example was distorted the name Arnaut to Arnold. Or Ali to Olaf. Or Balamir to Vladimir... That was a normal for the Catholics method of “historical reconstruction”.

Vinlend was lying south-west of the Greenland, it is depicted on the old map, where the Atlantic Ocean is called “Tengyr” (In Türkic, “sea” is Dingiz, “Tengyr” is an allophonic version). On the margins of the map was written a text in Türkic runes about the stages of the travel. That map for a long time was stored in Hungary, it is unique in that it was produced on the paper, a recipe for which was known only in Middle Asia (Samarkand). The map was taken to the Vatican, but the Hungary had retained a copy...

...The Fate scattered so far away across the world these Türks, who wanted to escape from the clutches of the Christian Church and save their Monotheism. They even discovered America long before Columbus, just to get away from the Roman Pope. The freedom of spirit was dearer than life... Following them, who were leaving off into the world of Arianism, trailed monks, who were their shadow and at the same time the ears and eyes of the Pope. They were expanding the geography of the Christian empire, extending it out from the Byzantium and Rome, with their help the horizons of the Church interest kept grieving, spreading to new lands and to the new peoples. The information was coming to the Pope from everywhere, it was analyzed and laid into the steps of the politics.

Thus transpired a new facet of the West, a distinctive facet, the colonization.

During the late Middle Ages, the Pope was ruling not the politics of the ideological expansion, but much more. A great deal more. The Church was becoming a first international institution of power. Not of the religion. It acquired one unnatural quality, a management of the society. The economics, politics, courts - everything was subordinated to it. The stages of that historical phenomenon first outlined a monk from the Yarou monastery in his work “The Ecclesiastical History of the Angles”, his chronology runs from the 8th c. Then the monasteries of England and other northern countries have become a stronghold of Catholicism, from there were furnished a poison for secret poisoning, a dagger for strike in the back. From there flowed a stream of lies, which covered with algae the Thames, the Holland lakes, the Denmark ponds... The Arianism was fought very craftily.

The monks were killing, and persecuting, and slandering. And serving the Church. All at the same time. Only for one matter they did not have time, this is to tell the truth, that was a condition where religion turns into politics.

The early history of the Nordic countries, the same very England, still has not been studied. The study was prohibited by the church, which was creating its own “history”. It was not bothered by the violation of the commandments... “Love thy neighbor”, “do not bear false witness”, these are not only the Christian precepts. The Arians had them too... That's what violated the Rome, falsifying the history, the God's commandments.

Through the efforts of politicians in robes the good and evil were intertwined, it is difficult to tell them apart now. But the history of England is a different case, there next to the dim monk's fantasy are the books of Edward Gibbon, the seven full-length volumes written in the 18th c. That is a great work of the great Englishman, a  Jesuit historian by education, an honest Protestant Christian by his spirit. In the Middle Ages, nobody have told it better. Having provided details atypical for the western science, Gibbon has angered the Church that wanted to hide those details away, and he paid for that dearly. “The past of the Great Britain is so familiar to the most uneducated of my readers, and so dark for the scientists”, Gibbon had admitted with sadness.

Nothing has changed since then. In the Altai, it was said in such cases: “Who have no enemies, those are inglorious”. And the Türks had enemies. Always... The Türks themselves.