There is something wrong about the official Russian history - and here is why

This theory is popular on the Russian web, but I haven't found a single mention of it in any foreign sources, so I decided this deserves a thread.

Ever heard of Tartaria?

Strange as it may sound, but this gigantic country in Eurasia continued appearing on different maps till the 19th century.

Here are a couple of examples:
map 1
map 2
map 3

Here is a 1,2 Gig pack of different old maps featuring Tartaria

Now, what does Wikipedia think of this?

Tartary (Latin: Tartaria) or Great Tartary (Latin: Tartaria Magna) was a name used in the Middle Ages until the twentieth century to designate the great tract of northern and central Asia stretching from the Caspian Sea and the Ural Mountains to the Pacific Ocean after the Mongol-Turkic invasion inhabited mostly by Turkic peoples. It incorporated the current areas of Pontic-Caspian steppe, Volga-Urals, Caucasus, Siberia, Turkestan, Mongolia, and Manchuria.

And here is a mention of Tartary (Tartaria) in Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. III, Edinburgh, 1771:

TARTARY, a vast country in the northern parts of Asia, bounded by Siberia on the north and west: this is called Great Tartary. The Tartars who lie south of Muscovy and Siberia, are those of Astracan, Circassia, and Dagistan, situated north-west of the Caspian-sea; the Calmuc Tartars, who lie between Siberia and the Caspian-sea; the Usbec Tartars and Moguls, who lie north of Persia and India; and lastly, those of Tibet, who lie north-west of China

So basically Tartaria is featured on all the maps till the end of 18th century. It has distinct borders with "Muscovia" - the early Russian kingdom that later turned into Russian empire. The historians' explanations is that Tartaria is no country, but a name for a land mass with a population in the form of nomad tribes. Since western geographers knew these lands badly, they just called them Tartaria. As the Russian empire grew, Tartaria grew smaller and gradually vanished from the maps as these lands were explored.

Several things are not clear though?

1) Why would someone even mention Tartaria in 18th century when according to official Russian history the majority of Siberia was colonized by Russians in the 17th century and ignorant western geographers would have to call it Muscovia and Russian empire?

2) Why would a piece of land have its own flag, heraldy and capital (current Russian town of Tobolsk is mentioned as a capital on many maps)?

Here are some examples from old books:

American encyclopedia published in 1865

collection of different documents dated 16th-19th century

some more here and here

3) Why would someone mention "Muscovian Tartaria", "Chinese Tartaria", "Independent Tartaria" of this was a Terra Incognita on itself, doesn't this sound to you more like federal districts of the same state?

4) Tartaria is mentioned in many sources wikipedia calls it all fiction though: travels of Marko Polo, Macbeth by Shakespeare, Puccini's Turandot, Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, Great Expectations by Dickens and so on.

5) The Great "Chinese" Wall basically repeats Tartaria's south-eastern borders on the old maps. Guess what? The fortifications look south, not north, as opposed to the official Chinese history that says the wall was built to fight off the nomads from the north.

So, where did this country go?
According to theories, Tartaria died in a major civil war that happened in the 18th century. Fun fact: the majority of Russian history was written in 17th-18th century by foreign (mostly German historians). Researchers claim emperor Peter the Great was an ally of the western dynasties. Under him Russia went through major reforms - changed the calendar, changed the capital (from Moscow to Saint Petersburg), partly changed the alphabet and was greatly westernized.

Change of the capital is especially interesting - why would anyone build a new capital from scratch in a distant place where western countries could easily capture it? Just look at the map - major maritime countries just needed a small fleet to cut off the capital from the rest of the country. This would make sence, however, if Tartaria really existed (this would mean Moscow would be really close to its borders).

I'll continue in the next post.

a reply to: evilcommunist

Interesting and I learned a lot from your post S/F for your clearly investigative thinking, I wish everyone would delve deeper when they find an interesting topic.

a reply to: evilcommunist

This theory is popular on the Russian web, but I haven't found a single mention of it in any foreign sources

Surprised?

Capitalistsm & corporatists, the predominant forces of the west are scared of the very idea of socialism of any kind, ergo Russia's history has to be portrayed in such a way as to keep people stupid to it, my opinion anyway

"Tartaria" would be the equivalent of what nineteenth century American maps might have called "Indian country". A geographical label rather than a political name.
It's no secret to "official history" that the territory was occupied by various tribes, with a strong nomadic culture in the Steppes portion of it, having states descended from the empires once established by Genghis Khan and his people.
Google the history of the "Golden Horde", for example.
However, you can't talk about a single "Tartarian" state with a continuous history, any more than the North American "Indian country" was a single state with a hidden history.

originally posted by: evilcommunist
Change of the capital is especially interesting - why would anyone build a new capital from scratch in a distant place where western countries could easily capture it? Just look at the map - major maritime countries just needed a small fleet to cut off the capital from the rest of the country. This would make sence, however, if Tartaria really existed (this would mean Moscow would be really close to its borders).
I'll continue in the next post.

Arnold Toynbee's Study of History has an appendix in which he does an historical survey of the movements of capitals.
He comes to the conclusion that capitals tend to move towards the point of contact with or danger from outsiders, because that's the direction where the ruler needs to keep on top of things.
Thus London is as close as possible to the Continent, and so chosen over York or Winchester.
Berlin was a natural capital for a country expecting to meet danger from the east.
Peking, in the north, was a natural capital for a China expecting invasions from the north.
The shift from Moscow to St.Petersburg is a very good example of this phenomenon. It reflects the fact that Peter wanted closer contact with the west. From that angle, Moscow had become a backwater. (Whereas if "Tartaria" had been a serious danger, his government would have stayed in Moscow in order to keep close to the problem)
When the Bolsheviks moved the capital back to Moscow, that reflected the way they were detaching themselves from the western world.

Incidentally, even major maritime countries could not attack St. Petersburg without getting into the Baltic first. Russia always had a strong Baltic fleet designed to guard against that danger.
Britain tried during the Crimean War and got nowhere. Not as vulnerable as you think.

a reply to: Zcustosmorum

What a frankly stupid response to a serious subject.

To topic. This has motivated me to do some basic research on this.

originally posted by: paraphi
a reply to: Zcustosmorum

What a frankly stupid response to a serious subject.

To topic. This has motivated me to do some basic research on this.

Stupid to you of course

I'm sure there's a lot about Russia's history that would surprise a lot of westerners, and what exactly they've been led to believe.

Alright guys. sorry for the delay, second part incoming.

a reply to: evilcommunist

I really love a good historical mystery, especially when it indicates that the "history" that we think we know must be re-written. I'll have to look into this on my own if my memory allows me to, but thanks for a great start on the info!

a reply to: evilcommunist

Speaking off the cuff during my lunch break, I'll offer up the following.
1) The capital was moved to St. Petersburg because it offered a port location and was easily accessible to the rest of Europe. Moscow on the other hand was rather remote and before the time of railroads, was difficult to access and was considered by the Russian Royalty to be something of a primitive backwater. St. Petersburg was established by Peter the Great as part of his westernization reforms of Russia. He was a great admirer of European Western Civilization and sought to emulate it by building up this more modern city as Capital of Russia.
2) The region known as Tartaria, while it may have been begun to be settled by the Russians in the 17th century wasn't actually annexed into a State formally known as the "Russian Empire" until sometime after 1721 and even then it isn't clear when the whole was absorbed. My brief read indicates that a large chunk of Tartaria wasn't actually absorbed until the 1850's; you can read something about it here:en.wikipedia.org...

Its all very muddy, but I get two impressions from it. One is that it the local "Khans" that ruled regions of Tartaria were weakened and slowly replaced by Russian immigration and the placement of Russian Territorial Governors starting sometime between 1750 and 1850. My guess is that the reason the region known as Tartaria continued to be displayed on maps is because no one in Western Europe or the Americas actually knew what was going on there, nor did they really care. It was so remote that no news was getting out.

a reply to: evilcommunist

Thanks for the information. I haven't been here long but I think most people know I am a opinionated, arrogant,introverted know it all.

But I will admit I have never heard of this. Thank you for pointing me in a new direction I am always interested in history.

So, at the start of 18th century "Muscovite Tartaria" disappears from the maps and Russian empire emerges, however Tartaria is still there (though 2/3 of Siberia is now under Russian control as the history books tell us).

It is also well known that under Peter the Great a lot of old Russian books, church wall paintings and icons that could have traces of Tartaria were destroyed. For example if you go to Moscow Kremlin all church paintings are new - old ones were destroyed under Peter.

Tartaria slowly disappears from the maps and is not there by the end of 18th century. But what major conflicts have there been at the end of 18th century in Russia?

Pugachev's Rebellion. As the state historians tell us, Pugachev was an impersonator who told everyone he was a rightful heir to the throne, when, in fact, he was a regular peasant. Even academic to the bone Russian historians doubt this story.

The most important fact is that Pugachev was not simply put to death as he was captured like a regular thug. There was a court in Moscow and he was sentenced to death as a noble man - empress Catherine II herself, as well as top ranking officials were present at his trial, so he was trialed as an equal - something unheard of in case of simple peysants.

If you like at this the Tartaria way, here are the facts:
1) The rebellion happened on vast Tartaria territories and the state forces came from the Muscovite territory.
2) Catherine was of German origin, whereas Pugachev who said he was the rightful heir to the throne was Russian. Could it be eastern dynasties against western dynasties?
3) After the rebellion a lot of natural objects like rivers and plains were renamed and almost every city that supported Pugachev had a fire that destroyed it to ashes. Every Russian city in "Tartaria" was rebuilt in the 19th century including Tobolsk earlier mentioned as Tartaria's capital.

The Rebelion was at the enf of 18th century, at the start of the 19th century there are only small shatds of Tartaria left on the maps, mostly in the middle Asia.

So the conspiracy theory is that western-backed Russian Tartaria dynasty came to power and destroyed most traces of the eastern rivals.

In the next post I'll speak about possible Tartaria traces left for us to discover.

a reply to: evilcommunist

You are setting off alarms in my mind. Not sure what it is yet..

I'm not mistaken in thinking that Tzar Nicholous, was related to European Royalty?
I mean aren't they ALL related...

This very much could be seen as Royal Bloodlines spreading out into the world taking more and more countries over.. At least out right in Eurasia, colonies most everywhere else..

But a different power came into the World as well especially around say 1910-1920 with years like 1913, 1917 sticking out in my mind.. At least those are important dates for America and Russia.. I'm falling into a rabbit hole so.. Wow I'll be back later lol.. I don't think Russia and the USA and Europe are truly enemies.. Much like the Monarchs who thought they would not fight among themselves cause they are all related.. Some hidden hand..

Oddly Rasputin is popping on my radar.. I know I am a bit forward in history, but it's the only part I am slightly familiar with to get my barrings.



As far as Tartaria
If you can get me to KNOW for sure the great wall has sections pointing the fortifications on the China Side of the wall.. Then I could see this as a thing.. Otherwise I see a weak people who were overrun by European Royalty.. The Russians still seem to not like the tar tars..

Wow I did not know of this history, though I know little of old Russia (Tartia) at all.

What seems evident; western paradigm and it's creators, we're and still are hell bent on global domination.

Things like this that tell me; the New World was a transforming paradigm shift manufactured by Western controllers and thought.

All throughout history; raiders, killers, dominion, burning ancient and old writings as well as monuments and structures.

Seems pretty clear, secret factions have been the driving force behind all the changes, to confirm our entire species to their paradigm and way of thinking.

Which is PARALELL to ancient paradigm.

Today, they are still at it. Hijack original paradigm and civilization, change it from the inside, kill, murder, assassinate, frame the original leaders. . Hire your own faction members to complete the shift in paradigm.

It works!

All of your questions about the formation of early russian political borders starts with Peter the Great, and I highly recommend thoroughly reading the book by Massie as a primer, I did.

You will understand PEter, European 18th century politics, the Russian Orthodox Church, the Tartar and cossaks, and the wars and alliances PEter forged that shaped the enlightened age European nation-state structure.

Not to mention, the machiavellian approach Peter took is pretty much mirrored by Vladimir Putin today (Peter even brutally tortured and finally killed one of his sons who ran away from his duty as next-in-line for the throne - disgusting!).

History doesn't repeat - it rhymes!

Thanks for the reply guys, I'll answer each of you a bit later.

So, most people I discussed this theory with point to the following - there are no traces of Tartaria left.
There might be some.

First, let's remember Tartaria's flag (replying to Disraeli - did "Indian country" have a capital and a flag?). Like you can see in my first post, Tartaria's flag is a dragon on a golden banner. Now let's look at Moscow's coat of arms.

That's right, that is Saint George (or so they say) defeating that very dragon. Opponents often say this dragon is also present on Kazan's coat of arms, so this commemorates Russia's victory over tatars in 1552). However we can se this Tartarian flag in different books even in the 19th century, and Tartaria is mentioned as a separate country. I think two centuries is more than enough to realize Kazan is now a part of Russia.

Now let's look at Russia's second most famous fortress. Petropavlovskaya fortress is shaped like a star, you'll find many of these in Europe, especially Holland.

There is an expression in Russian "provalitsya v Tartarary" which means "to disappear" without a trace.
Pokrovskaya fortress is near Omsk in Siberia. I guess this saying might have a direct meaning. This fortress was constructed, as the history books tell us, in the middle of 18th century, guess when it was disassembled? Start of the 19th century. Not a single stone left and we can only see it was there from bird's eye view. What was the point in having it for 50 years? Why not disassemble Kremlin than? To add to the mystery, its territory is protected by state and archeological excavations on site are forbidden.

Another one near Rostov.

This link is in Russian but you can see a great collection of such destroyed fortresses on Tartarian territories.

Siberia is usually portrayed as a wild territory with no culture, but how could we know if all its major cities were burned at the end of the "exploration" and most fortresses - destroyed?

It still exists on the maps though.

There is a huge amount on this on the Russian segment of the web, I can't translate all of this of course and some assumptions look a bit over the top.

To finish this, here is a video of president Putin coming to Russian academy of sciences and presenting them with an ancient book saying it has some really interesting facts in it = like Russians and "Golden Horde" fighting against other Russians and "Golden Horde" (btw "orda" or horde meant "army" in the old Russian, according to history books "Golden Horde" came from where Tartaria was on the map. Modern scientists are saying tatars and tartars are the same, but this looks pure BS, for example here you can see Russian and Tartars are basically one people, ecen dressed the same and looking surprisingly European.

The video is brief but you can see another map with Tartaria on it, saying Great Tartaria's capital is in Tobolsk.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I partly replied to you in my last post. And yes, I read a lot about the Golden Horde since I'm Russian. See, a lot of Russian historians doubt there ever was a Golden Horde, for example excavations showed there is practically nothing left on the fields of the major Russian-Horde battles.

Then there are old Russian church wall paintings and paintings from old books who portray the Horde as completely Russian-looking and sometimes even christian force (theu wield banners with Crist's face. Like this one.

Russia always had a strong Baltic fleet designed to guard against that danger.

Russia had no fleet whatsoever at Peter's times. Yet, he started building the city when Sweden's, Norway's and Holland's mighty fleets were there and could destroy the new capital without any serious effort.

originally posted by: evilcommunist
First, let's remember Tartaria's flag (replying to Disraeli - did "Indian country" have a capital and a flag?). Like you can see in my first post, Tartaria's flag is a dragon on a golden banner.

I did point out that there were states within the region, including the descendants of the Golden Horde (nicknamed "Tartars") and the Khanate of Crimea (also nicknamed "Tartars") So any references to the capital and flag of "Tartary" would be to the capital and flag of one of them, using the name loosely.

There's a similar ambiguity in the name "America". In one sense, "America" is a single state with a capital and flag. But it would be easy enough to find maps where "America" was being used as a label for the whole double continent from Baffin island to Tierra del Fuego. It would be a mistake to point to "the American flag" as proof that the whole double continent had once been a single unitary state. Your informants are in danger of making the same mistake with "Tartaria".

a video of president Putin coming to Russian academy of sciences and presenting them with an ancient book saying it has some really interesting facts in it = like Russians and "Golden Horde" fighting against other Russians and "Golden Horde"

Ah yes, I've already spoken of the Golden Horde myself, describing it as a state descended from the empire of Genghis Khan. You see, what you're bringing out is actually well-known to "official history". It is no secret that there were states in this region. The only mistake is the idea that there was a single unitary state covering the whole area. Yes, the empire of Genghis Khan himself was united, but the unity did not last much beyond his own generation. For example, there was at one stage an independent Khanate of Sibir, which has given its name to Siberia. The Khanate centred on Tobolsk would be another, the Crimean Tartars another.

What you are bringing out is worth sharing as interesting history, not well-known to modern western readers. But the conspiracy angle is over-ingenious and unnecessary.

a reply to: TonyS

The history books tell us that Peter needed "a window to Europe", hence he transferref the capital there. However, if you look at Russia's map, almost at the same time he gained control over the Baltic countries which are even more convenient for a new capital. Yet he decided on a less convenient place. There is some interesting info on the origins of Saint Petersburg, I might do a thread on it later.

Also, the south Black sea direction has always been crucial to Russia (and relatively easily accessible), yet he decided to scrap it and construct a capital in a place hardly accessible from major trade and supply routes (it remained so until railroads appeared).

The whole thing looks quite illogical.

originally posted by: evilcommunist
Russia had no fleet whatsoever at Peter's times. Yet, he started building the city when Sweden's, Norway's and Holland's mighty fleets were there and could destroy the new capital without any serious effort.

You will agree, though, that no maritime nation ever succeeded in capturing St. Petersburg?
In fact, come to think of it, the navies of Peter's time could not possibly have carried an army large enough to have overcome his land forces there, so the danger is imaginary in any case. Can you think of a successful city-capture by one of the contemporary navies?
Charles XII of Sweden was attacking with a land-army.