5 historical facts, the reality of which scientists doubt

History is an imprecise science. Especially when it comes to eras that are very distant from modernity. Sometimes scientists do not have reliable sources to judge about some events. Sometimes, on the contrary, there are enough sources, but they contradict each other. And sometimes new findings of researchers radically change the idea of ​​the past.

1. Homer wrote the Iliad and the Odyssey

Little is known about the alleged author of the oldest poems in Europe. So much so that scientists doubt not only that Homer wrote the stories about the Trojan War and the Odyssey, but that he even existed at all.

Neither the exact place nor the time of Homer's birth and death is known. For example, Herodotus wroteHerodotus. History. II: 53that the narrator lived "not earlier than 400 years before me," that is, in the 9th-8th centuries BC. But other sources are an unnamed Greek historian and Pseudo-Plutarch This is the name of the authors whose works were previously attributed to Plutarch.

- indicateS. Saïd. Homer and the odysseythat he was born much earlier. The first writes that this happened in the XI, and the second - that in the XIII-XII centuries BC, during the Trojan War.

In general, even if Homer really existed, then in the descriptions of descendants he turned into a semi-mythical character - a wise blind man.

The Iliad and Odyssey also say little about Homer. The fact is that they were passed from mouth to mouth for a long time and were recorded B. B. Powell. Homer and the Origin of the Greek Alphabet not earlier than the 8th century BC.

Back in the 18th century, on the manuscripts of poems were foundF. A. Wolf. Prolegomena ad Homerum notes of ancient scholars with other versions of ancient poems. That is, each new storyteller performed the texts in his own way. Perhaps that is why the stylistics of the Iliad and the Odyssey are different. Some researchers even considerM. L. West. The invention of Homer / The Classical Quarterlythat they were composed by different people and, perhaps, at different times.

2. The library of Alexandria died in a fire

This library, located in the Egyptian city of Alexandria, was the largest in history: it containedW. A. Wiegand, D. G. Jr. Davis. Encyclopedia of Library History from 40 to 700 thousand scrolls. In the III century BC it was founded by the Ptolemies - a dynasty of rulers who remained on these lands after the campaigns of Alexander the Great.

However, the library did not even live up to the Middle Ages. The debate about why this happened is still ongoing. One point of view is that the library was destroyed by fire. Various authors, from Plutarch to 18th century historian Edward Gibbon, have blamedThe fate of the Library of Alexandria / Britannica in the incident of the Roman emperors, Muslims and Christians. The latter, for example, burn the library in the film "Agora" 2009 year.

But the researchers failed to find a single trace of a large fire.

So, according to Plutarch, the legionnaires of Caesar, who was under siege in Alexandria, set fire toPlutarch. Caesar. 49: 7 / Comparative Biographies in Two Volumes ships in the port to prevent the enemy fleet from reaching the city. As a result, the fire spread to the library. True, today scientists believeE. J. Watts. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandriathat it is unlikely that the book depository was really badly damaged during the fire.

Most likely, everything happened by itself. After the Roman conquest of Egypt, the significance of Alexandria and its library beganE. J. Watts. City and School in Late Antique Athens and Alexandria decrease. The scholars and copyists of the books who worked in it began to leave the city. And by the middle of the 3rd century AD, the largest antique library had fallen into disrepair. Later, Roman sources no longer mention it.

The books were distributed to other libraries, and the unselected ones were either destroyed or simply decayed.

3. Moscow was founded by Yuri Dolgoruky

The age of the capital of Russia is counted from 1147. This date was taken from the Ipatiev Chronicle. It describesComplete collection of Russian chronicles. T. 2. Ipatiev Chronicle. Stlb. 339like the prince of Rostov-Suzdal (at that time) Yuri, the son of Vladimir Monomakh, invites another prince Svyatoslav to a feast: "Come to me, brother, in Moscow." This is the first mention of the word "Moscow" in the surviving historical sources.

But scientists doubt whether it is possible to consider the 1147th date of the city's appearance, and Yuri Dolgoruky - its founder.

First, the chronicler does not specify exactly where Yuri invited Svyatoslav: to a city, a village, or just a camp on the river bank. The anonymous author does not report anything about where "Moskov" came from and whether the prince was involved in this.

Secondly, according to another chronicle - Tverskoy - Dolgoruky only in 1156 laidA. E. Lyubarev. On the role of Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrei Bogolyubsky in the founding of Moscow / Chronos a fortress on the site of the present Moscow Kremlin. However, at this time, the prince already ruled in Kiev and could hardly be in such distant lands.

Therefore, some historians believe that the fortification in the area of ​​the Neglinnaya and Yauza rivers was built by Andrei Bogolyubsky, the son of Yuri Dolgoruky. Perhaps at the behest of his father. Other scholars are inclined to believe that Yuri did it, but in 1153, when the prince was actively building up Vladimir-Suzdal land fortifications.

Thus, only the chronicles give us three possible dates (1147, 1153 and 1156) for the emergence of Moscow and two potential founders: Yuri Dolgoruky and Andrei Bogolyubsky.

But if we turn to archaeological sources, the matter becomes even more complicated. So, on the territory of the Danilovsky Monastery and near Red Square, were foundA. A. Tyunyaev. How old is Moscow? (on the issue of disputes between archaeologists and chroniclers) / Russia and the modern world buildings and decorations of the 9th – 11th centuries. Also, ancient Arab coins of the 9th century were found in the capital. Therefore, Moscow may turn out to be 200-300 years older. True, there is one thing: it is not clear whether the found settlements can be considered a city, because only a prince could assign such a status.

And to get completely confused, you can turn to two literary works of the 17th century: "The Legend of the Conception of Moscow and the Krutitsa Episcopate" and the story "About the beginning of the reigning city of Moscow." The first relatesWITH. TO. Shambinago. Tale of the beginning of Moscow / USSR Academy of Sciences. Proceedings of the Department of Ancient Russian Literature of the Institute of Literature III the emergence of the "third Rome" by 1212, and the second - already by 880, and even declares Prince Oleg the founder. However, historians do not take these sources very seriously.

4. Ivan the Terrible killed his son

Ivan IV the Terrible was not an easy man. At least by modern standards. He executed thousands of people, and sent his wives to the monastery. At the same time, he also sent lists of those killed and tortured to the churches, so that they would pray there for their repose, and repented of their sins.

And he, like Peter the Great, had a difficult relationship with the heir.

The tsar believed that the chosen one of his son was dressed in an inappropriate way, and he also saw in him a danger to his rule: Ivan Ivanovich was popular among the people.

According to rumors, on the night of November 16, 1581, Ivan the Terrible, during another quarrel, became so inflamed that he hit his offspring on the head with a rod. For example, I wrote about thisA. Possevino. Historical writings about Russia in the 16th century. Pope's diplomat Antonio Possevino.

The consequences of a family conflict can be seen in the famous painting by the artist Ilya Repin.

However, it is not known for certain what exactly happened that night. Ivan the Terrible himself wroteN. Likhachev. The case of Anthony Posevin's arrival in Moscow in letters that the tsarevich "got sick", that is, fell ill. The annals mostly just reported B. N. Florea. Ivan the Terrible about the death of the heir to the throne. Whether this was a consequence of his father's blow or not, historians do not know: when the grave was opened, Ivan Ivanovich's skull crumbledM. M. Gerasimov. Documentary portrait of Ivan the Terrible.

But it is known for sureN. Likhachev. The case of Anthony Posevin's arrival in Moscowthat Ivan the Terrible fought for the life of his son and called doctors to him. But the treatment did not help, and the 27-year-old prince died 11 days later.

5. Ivan Susanin took the Polish invaders into the winter forest

Everyone knows the story of Ivan Susanin. It was in 1613. The terrible Time of Troubles was ending. The Boyar Duma elected a new ruler of the Russian state, on whose lands robbers and foreign invaders operated.

In this situation, a simple Kostroma serf peasant Ivan did not give the Poles the location of the future Russian Tsar Mikhail Romanov. He was hiding somewhere nearby. Susanin, on the other hand, took the invaders into impenetrable forests to certain death. And there he himself died at the hands of the invaders.

But historians have big doubts that everything was really so. Firstly, it is not a fact that Ivan Susanin led the Poles into the forest.

The fact is that we know almost less about the savior of the first Romanov than about Homer.

The only document from that era in whichM. Velizhnev, M. Lavrinovich. "The Susanin Myth": Formation of the Canon / New Literary Review the name of the hero is a certificate of honor issued by the tsar to Susanin's son-in-law Bogdan Sabinin in 1619.

In it the monarch bestowedM. Velizhnev, M. Lavrinovich. "The Susanin Myth": Formation of the Canon / New Literary Review Susanin's relatives - daughter and her husband - the right to own land (half of the village in which they lived) and exemption from serf taxes for the exploits of the father and father-in-law. Susanin, according to the document, was tortured, trying to find out the location of the pretender to the Russian throne, but in vain. At the same time, there is not a word about the fact that the peasant led the Polish detachment into the deep forests, there is not a word in the letter.

A more detailed description of this incident appeared only in the decree of 1731, confirming the right of Susanin's descendants to privileges. It just talks about the Susanin "sabotage". Where did this add-on come from? Perhaps from retellings of eyewitness accounts that were not recorded in the wake of the events. And perhaps from rumors and tales of the Kostroma people. Researchers have been arguing about this since the 19th century.

Secondly, the vagueness of the available information made some historians, such as Nikolai Kostomarov, doubt that the feat was accomplished at all. So, Kostomarov wroteN. AND. Kostomarov. Ivan Susanin (Historical research)that, most likely, Bogdan Sabinin invented a story about a father-in-law in order to receive royal gratitude. This is indirectly confirmed by the fact that the letter was handed over to Bogdan after he made a petition to the monarch.

And another famous Russian historian Sergei Solovyov, as Kostomarov points out in his work, wrote at all that in 1613 there were no Poles or Lithuanians in the vicinity of Kostroma. And Susanin may have been tortured and killed by Cossacks or robbers.

In general, the story with the feat of Ivan Susanin came out - to match the time - vague.