The Romanov Destruction of History

This article is in response to Fomenko’s How It Was In Reality, Chapter 7 part 14 [1]. His reference is [552] and is listed as “”The Moscow Kremlin. Arkhangelsk Cathedral”. – Moscow, State Historical and Cultural Museum-Reserve “Moscow Kremlin”, 1995.”. I haven’t been able to locate this source online.

In this article I list a number of Fomenko’s claims and then fact check them. Since the most recent update to this article, the number of claims supported/contradicted/undetermined are followed by the corresponding claim numbers in parenthesis:
Supported: 15 (1-8, 10, 11, 13-17)
Contradicted: 1 (9)
Undetermined: 3 (12, 18, 19)

Claims 12 and 18 are both opinions that appear to be somewhat based on the core of his New Chronology, and claim 19 is even more heavily hinged on the core of the New Chronology, so all of these might have to be left undetermined until the core of the New Chronology is validated or invalidated.

Out of the 19 claims presented, I have determined about 84.21% of them to be supported or contradicted. Out of the 16 claims (84.21%) determined so far, 15 (93.75%) were determined to be supported and one (6.25%) was determined to be contradicted. The overall grade of 93.75% is an A (4.0 GPA) according to [15].

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

PART ONE: Fomenko’s Claims

Fomenko begins by talking about the Cathedral of the Archangel which is located in Moscow, Russia. A list of his claims from this section of 7.14:

1 – It was “declared to be the official burial vault of the Russian Grand Princes and Czars including the first Romanovs”.

2 – There are currently about “50 tombs in the cathedral”.

3 – It is thought that starting with Ivan Kalita (1288-1340), all the Moscow Grand Dukes were buried there.

4 – The approximately 50 brick tombs were made by the first Romanovs in the 17th century.

5 – Fomenko claims that the brick tombs were made at the time that “the old frescoes [were] removed from the cathedral walls and vaults and new ones were painted in their place”.

6 – “It is thought that ‘burials were made in white stone sarcophagi, which were lowered into the ground under the floor.”

7 – “In the first half of the XVII century at the burial site they erected brick tombstones with white stone slabs ornamented with Slavonic inscriptions.”

8 – The tombstones were placed in “glazed cases made of bronze” in the early 20th century.

9 – “At the same time they assure us that the inscriptions on the old slabs were reproduced precisely on the brick tombstones made by the Romanovs.”

10 – “…the sarcophagi of the Russian queens (Czaritzas)” were moved to the basement of the cathedral from the Kremlin cemetery in the 20th century. Also the cemetery was destroyed when modern buildings were being constructed.

11 – The Romanovs ‘either used the anonymous tombs of nuns or removed the names from some other tombs and then passed them off as the ‘tombs of the Russian queens’.”

12 – “The true burial sites of the Russian-Horde queens were, most likely, destroyed.”

13 – “And it is in the XVII century the Romanov historians and archaeologists ‘happily discovered’ allegedly authentic tombs of Yaroslav the Wise (Mudry), Saint Vladimir (Svyatoy) etc.”

14 – “there was no [royal] necropolis in Moscow in the pre-Romanov epoch”. I added the word royal in for reasons explained on claim 14 in part 2.

15 – “What we are presented with today as ‘antiquity’ is either the Romanov modern replicas or the poor coffins of common people, presented by the Romanov historians as the ‘Royal burial sites’.”

16 – “the Romanovs started using the old Russian white stoned tombs as building materials”.

17 – Between 1632 and 1636, the burial types changed in Russia, at least for the royal burials.

18 – “very little true archaeological evidence and written records from earlier than the XVII century survive”.

19 – “In the colonies of the Great Empire, in Western Europe, the former imperial cathedrals and constructions were on the whole also destroyed. However the Western reformers who came to power decided to preserve the Gothic architectural style of the ‘Mongol’ temples in their own new buildings, having only declared it to be ancient and exclusively their own, allegedly purely Western-European”.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Cathedral of the Archangel. Moscow, Russia.

PART TWO: Checking the Narrative

In the citations, p means paragraph and pg means page.

1 – It was a burial place for Moscow Princes and Czars during the 14th-18th centuries [2], which supports Fomenko’s claim.

2 – It is a dynastic necropolis that has 46 tombs [2]. However, [3] states that there are a total of 56 burials placed under a total of 45 tombs and 2 memorial tombstones. It also states that “by the early 16th century the temple was so overloaded with tombs that Ivan III decided to destroy his great grandfather’s burial place and build a new one, more spacious, so that it could accommodate not only the twenty-three old coffins, but also the ‘new coming ones’.”. Forty-six tombs are also reported by [5, p19]. Fomenko’s claim of approximately 50 tombs is supported by rounding up 45/46 to 50.

3 – Fomenko’s claim about the burials starting with Ivan Kalita (1288-1340) and housing is supported by [3]. Also if Grand Dukes are included in “tsars, high officials, and patriarchs” then the second part of claim 3 from Fomenko is also supported by [3].

4 – Fomenko’s claim that the Romanovs made the brick tombs in the 17th century is supported by [5, p19].

5 – The frescoes were “restored” between 1652 and 1666 [4], [5, p7]. The Tsar who ordered the “restoration”, Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich (1629-1676), ordered the painters “to cover the church of Archangel Michael anew with wall paintings removing all that was made before” [5, p7]. There possibly is a small discrepancy in Fomenko’s claim that the frescoes were replaced at the same time that the brick tombs were created. I haven’t seen any claims about who ordered the construction of the brick tombs, but [5, p19] claims they were built in the first half of the 17th century, and [5, p7] says it was Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich who ordered the new frescoes. This means that the brick tombs could’ve been built either by the first Romanov Tsar, Michael I who reigned from 1613 to 1676, or the second Romanov Tsar, Alexei Mikhailovich who reigned from 1645 to 1676, given that 1645 is in the first half of the 17th century. Either way, I think Fomenko’s claim that the tombs and the frescoes were created in the 17th century by the first Romanovs is supported.

6 – Fomenko’s claim that it is thought that the sarcophagi were made of white stone then lowered into the ground is supported by [3].

7 – Fomenko’s claim that the white stone slabs over the brick tombs were decorated with Slavonic inscriptions is supported by [5, p19].

8 – Twentieth century brass and glass cases are mentioned in [3]. Fomenko said bronze but this might be a translation issue. Brass and bronze are closely related but technically are different types of alloys. Copper and glass is reported in [5] in the 19th paragraph down. I’d say Fomenko’s claim is supported, but could use an edit for accuracy.

9 – I’m not sure what Fomenko’s source said that made him claim that “they assure us that the inscriptions on the old slabs were reproduced precisely”, but in reference to those inscriptions [3] stated “…the inscriptions were made with mistakes: appanage princes were called great, and in some cases the wrong death dates were given.” Possibly he accurately reported what his source said, which would make his claim supported by his source, but that source of his is contradicted by [3]. This could be due simply to a change in opinion over time about the accurateness of the inscriptions. This is why I have 9 marked as contradicted, because Fomenko possibly used a source which is contradicted by updated or more accurate information. Depending on what sources can be found to support/contradict claim 9, my end judgement may change.

10 – Fomenko’s claim that the Russian queens’ sarcophagi were moved to the basement of the cathedral from the Kremlin cemetery in the 20th century is supported by [8, p6]. That source also supports the second part of the claim about the cemetery being destroyed. Furthermore it says that the cemetery of the Ascension Monastery, of which is in the Moscow Kremlin and from which the sarcophagi were moved, was destroyed specifically in 1928. This date might be contradicted by the year 1929 being reported in [9], but both dates are incredibly close. Fomenko’s claim seems to me to be further supported by [9] because they report that the monastery complex of the Ascension convent was destroyed and the Red Commanders School was built in its former place. Fomenko also agrees with the 1929 date in his Volume 4, Book 2, Chapter 2.7 of History: Fiction or Science? [10].

11 – Taking anonymous bodies and propping them up as impostors of important people isn’t that all that unheard of, as the Catholic church did this from the 16th-19th centuries [6], [7]. While I think it is a difficult task to prove that this is exactly what the Romanovs did, Fomenko does show where these allegedly royal bodies are today and brings up what I believe to be valid criticisms of declaring them to be royal persons. He also explains why it would make sense that the Romanovs were responsible for this [10]. Due to this, I will consider claim 11’s validity to be supported. However, I will mention that this is the one I consider to be supported the least out of all of the ones I’ve labelled supported, which isn’t to say the support is weak, but it’s less strong than one of the claims that is really simple and easy to support.

12 – I’m still looking for information that supports/contradicts the “true burial sites of the Russian-Horde queens were, most likely, destroyed”. I think maybe the reason Fomenko says this is because the cemetery was destroyed, or possibly to insinuate the Romanovs found the true sites and destroyed them. Maybe an unrelated cemetery was destroyed but I’ll need more information to make a less speculative statement about his reasoning. He does mention that this probability is based on the premise that the graves were in Russia and not elsewhere [10]. Therefore claim 12’s validity is undetermined.

13 – Claim 13 is complex and for that reason I might end up splitting this one into two half points for the final grade. The first part is that Romanov historians were responsible for multiple discoveries, the second part is that the discovery was of the tombs of Yaroslav the Wise and Saint Vladimir in the 17th century. The closest thing that I have found so far pertaining to Yaroslav the Wise’s tomb being discovered is on page 10 in [12] which I included in part 3 of this article, which is basically just a mention of his remains made in 1634.

Charipova communicated that Athanasius Kalnofoyski’s Teratourgema (1638) reported that “the remains of Saint Volodimer were discovered during removal of debris from the site of the ‘Tithe’ Church” [14, pg.445]. Charipova continues on after that quote to say that the church was “in ruins as late as the mid-1630’s when” Petro Mohyla (1596-1647) used materials from the ‘Tithe’ church for a new church. I think this is evidence that Saint Vladimir was discovered in the 17th century, but I don’t know how involved the Romanovs would’ve been in this. It appears to me that under the authority of the King of Poland, Mohyla took possession of St. Sophia’s Cathedral, the place in which Yaroslav the Wise’s sarcophagus was found and also where it is being kept today, in the first half of the 17th century and reported that it was in a pitiful condition [14, pg.443]. However, Mohyla was not in Kiev when he gained possession of the cathedral, and was not there when the ground was originally being dug into and when the debris was first starting to be cleared [14, pg.447]. There is a connection between Mohyla and the first Romanov ruler, Tsar Mikhail Fedorovich. In 1639, Mohyla sent the alleged jawbone of Saint Vladimir to the Tsar as a present and they had a couple of messages sent back and forth where eventually the Tsar takes favor in Mohyla [14, pg.446]. Due to all of this, I currently have 13 marked as supported, given the 17th century appearance of Saint Vladimir, the 17th century take over by Mohyla, the 17th century mention of Yaroslav the Wise, and the favor that Mohyla appears to have found with the first Romanov Tsar.

14 – I’m still looking for more information about the history of large royal cemeteries in Moscow. From a preliminary search, Fomenko’s claim does appear to be true. He doesn’t explicitly say royal necropolis in the quote from How It Was In Reality, but he does appear to specify it to be a royal necropolis about halfway through [10], which is a major foundation for the information in How It Was In Reality. While I’m still looking for more information, I am marking claim 14 as supported.

15 – I explain in claim 17 why Fomenko asserts that the Romanovs propped up common people as royals and I believe he provides compelling substantiations. I’ll also note here that the practice of propping up anonymous or insignificant people to be someone they aren’t is within the realm of possibility as I mentioned in claim 11. This is why I mark claim 15 as supported.

16 – Fomenko claimed “the Romanovs started using the old Russian white stoned tombs as building materials”. He offers the reference that he labelled as [62], which is Belyaev L.A. “The ancient monasteries of Moscow according to archeology.” – Moscow, Russian Academy of Sciences. Institute of Archeology. Materials and research on archeology of Moscow. Volume 6. 1995. I haven’t been able to confirm that Belyaev wrote that work, but I do think I found a list of his publications here. Leonid Andreevich Belyaev is reportedly a renowned Russian archaeologist.

Fomenko does appear substantiate his claim #16 in Volume 4, Book 2, Chapter 2.7 [11], where he shows images of the tomb stones used in the constructions of the late 17th century. He includes images of the grave stones that were retrieved from excavations of monasteries and they show dates of 7159 and 7177, which are 1651 and 1669 respectively. Unless these dates themselves were falsified, Fomenko’s claim here is supported by the evidence.

17 – The change in Russian burial customs between 1632 and 1636 is supported by Fomenko’s study presented near the end of [10]. He presents evidence that I think is compelling. I welcome others to review it for themselves and comment here to explain why they think it’s either a compelling or non-compelling case. To summarize his argument, there does appear to be a major change in the tomb shape between those years, which I do think is evidence of a reform in burial customs, as the old customs were replaced by new ones.

18 – This is somewhat of a matter of opinion, but maybe there would be a way to calculate this. I’ll have to learn more about pre-17th Russian archaeological evidence there is. For now claim 18’s validity is undetermined.

19 – I doubt any other source supports this claim as its based entirely on Fomenko’s New Chronology. However, I mark this down as undetermined as I don’t know of any rebuttals to this.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

PART THREE: Quotes I Found While Reading

“The idea of the Tsar genealogy took its final shape only in the mid-16th century and received its fullest reflection in the “Book of Tsar Genealogy” which depicts Russian history as a single chain of saintly Moscow sovereigns and their ancestors, “God-chosen scepter-holders” who by their battle feats have earned the “Wreath of Glory” in the struggle against the heretics for the “Purity of faith”.” [5, p12].

“In 1963 the burial vaults in the deacon niche were opened for the sake of archaeological studies. The well-known anthropologist M.M Gerasimov, using the remains discovered in the sarcophaguses, restored the outward image of the Tsars Ivan the Terrible and Fyodor Ivanovich.” [5, p15].

“The supposition that only a requiem was sung for Vladimir and his mother is supported by the fact that there appears to be no trace of a feast of October 4, that is, neither a life or office of Vladimir and his mother nor a reference to their feast in a liturgical calendar before the beginning of the seventeenth century. An important source on the saints of Novgorod from 1634 says that as of that date the remains of Vladimir and Anna were uncorrupted and worked miracles, but that no liturgical was established to them. In other words, as of 1634 the clergy of St. Sophia in Novgorod apparently did not consider Vladimir and his mother saints.”
– Richard D. Bosley [12, pg.10]. This quote from Bosley is the one I reference in claim 13. I found the rest of his article to be interesting too.

“…[the cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev] fell into disrepair and became practically a ruin in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. A thorough reconstruction between 1690 and 1707 completely obliterated the exterior aspect of the cathedral beneath Baroque additions.”
– Cyril Mango [13, pg.253]. This is the cathedral where Yaroslav the Wise’s sarcophagus is located.

“It was early in the seventeenth century that people such as Elisei Pletenetskii and Zakhariia Kopystenskii, Mohyla’s predecessors as the Kiev Caves Monastery archimandrites, had ‘rediscovered’ and re-appraised Kiev’s celebrated past.”
– Liudmila V. Charipova [14, pg.449]

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~


[1] – Accessed 18 July 2020.

[2] – Moscow Kremlin Museums: The Archangel’s Cathedral. Accessed 18 July 2020.

[3] – Moscow Kremlin Museums: Burial Place of Grand Princes and Tsars. Accessed 18 July 2020.

[4] – Moscow Kremlin Museums: Wall-painting. Accessed 18 July 2020.

[5] – Accessed 18 July 2020.

[6] – Accessed 18 July 2020.

[7] – Accessed 18 July 2020.

[8] – Accessed 19 July 2020.

[9] – Accessed 19 July 2020.

[10] – Accessed 19 July 2020.

[11] – Accessed 19 July 2020.

[12] – Bosley, Richard D. “The Saints of Novgorod: à Propos of A. S. Chorošev’s Book on the Church in Mediaeval Novgorod.” Jahrbücher Für Geschichte Osteuropas, vol. 32, no. 1, 1984, pp. 1–15. JSTOR, Accessed 19 July 2020.

[13] – Mango, Cyril. The Art Bulletin, vol. 38, no. 4, 1956, pp. 253–255. JSTOR, Accessed 19 July 2020.

[14] – Liudmila V. Charipova. “Peter Mohyla and St Volodimer: Is There a Symbolic Link?” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. 80, no. 3, 2002, pp. 439–458. JSTOR, Accessed 20 July 2020.

[15] – Accessed 20 July 2020.

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Gain access to exclusive Ctruth activities, benefits, and content @

~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: