Who is depicted on the bas-relief of the pedestal of the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow?

Who is depicted on the bas-relief of the pedestal of the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow?
Who is depicted on the bas-relief of the pedestal of the monument to Minin and Pozharsky in Moscow?

Monument to Minin and Pozharsky is a bronze statue designed by Ivan Martos and located on Red Square in Moscow, in front of St. Basil's Cathedral.

The monument is dedicated to Prince Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin, who gathered the All-Russian volunteer army and expelled the troops of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth under the command of the Polish king Sigismund III, thereby putting an end to the Time of Troubles in 1612.

Minin: died in 1616

Pozharsky: died in 1642

Time of Troubles: 1598-1612

The monument was conceived to commemorate the 200th anniversary of these events. The competition for the best design was won by the famous sculptor Ivan Martos in 1808. Martos completed the model, which was approved in 1813.

Copper casting works weighing 500 kilograms (1,100 lb) were carried out in 1816 in St. Petersburg. The base, made of three massive blocks of granite, was brought from Finland, then it was carved in St. Petersburg. However, due to Napoleon's invasion of Russia, the monument was unveiled only in 1818.

On the front of the base there is a bronze plaque depicting a scene of patriotic citizens donating their property for the benefit of their homeland.

A battle scene is depicted on the reverse side of the pedestal. The bas-relief is dedicated to the victory of the people's militia led by Prince Pozharsky. The plot is also divided into two parts. On the left, the Poles fleeing from Moscow look with horror at the victors, on the right Pozharsky, leading the brave warriors, tramples his horse and drives away the enemy with his sword.

I can ignore the pagan Medusa on the shield. But what are we going to do with Mr. Pozharsky in 1612 in a helmet too similar to the one worn by Alexander Nevsky or Tsar Mikhail the First? Are they generally different people or are they all one historically existing personality?

Jericho Helmet

Why is there the same helmet on Pozharsky? The helmet was made in 1621 by Nikita Davydov for Michael I, Tsar of Muscovy. It was used as a ceremonial attribute to the vestments of Michael. After Muscovy was renamed the Russian Empire, the helmet was depicted on the coat of arms of the Russian Empire.

Currently, the helmet is kept in the Kremlin Armory and is considered one of the most valuable exhibits: "Helmet 'Jericho Hat'. Craftsman: Nikita Davydov. 1621"

This helmet could not have belonged to Alexander Nevsky: "The helmet was made in 1621 by the master Nikita Davydov for Mikhail Fedorovich Romanov."

"The helmet of Alexander Nevsky" could not have been made in the 13th century. At this time, such combat headgear simply did not exist in the world. The 13th century, in relation to Russian helmets, are princely helmets with developed face protection (half mask, less often - a mask) and a circular chain mail aventail.

Fedor Grigorievich Solntsev is a Russian painter and art historian. 1801-1892

His work made a great contribution to the fixation and preservation of medieval Russian culture, which was the general theme of his paintings. He was the main author of the fundamental work "Antiquities of the Russian State", the chief interior decorator of the Grand Kremlin Palace in Moscow. Apparently, it was Solntsev who insisted that the helmet belonged to Alexander Nevsky.

Helmet of Alexander Nevsky, 1840s

If we add up all the data, the conclusion is simple - this helmet did not belong to Alexander Nevsky.

Three crowns

This particular helmet has three distinctive crowns. This is the only helmet with such crowns. On the bas-relief, we can clearly see one of these crowns.It turns out that we have a helmet that has not yet been made, worn on the head of a person who could not wear it, even if such a helmet existed in 1612.

Below you can see one of the helmets depicted on the pedestal of the Alexander Column.

The pedestal of the Alexander Column is decorated with symbols of military glory carved by Giovanni Battista Scotti.

On the side of the pedestal, facing the Winter Palace, there is a bas-relief depicting winged figures holding a plaque with the inscription "Alexander I from grateful Russia" in their hands.

The composition includes figures depicting the Neman and Vistula rivers associated with the events of the Patriotic War.

On the sides of these figures are depicted ancient Russian armor - the shield of the Novgorod prince Oleg, the helmet of Alexander Nevsky, the breastplate of Emperor Alexander I, the chain mail of Ermak Timofeevich and other items reminiscent of the heroes whose feats of arms brought glory to Russia.

Who could this helmet belong to - Alexander Nevsky or Tsar Mikhail? I think … Mikhail does not have worthy military achievements to wear a helmet. Compare the military merits of Mikhail with Mr. Nevsky.

And although the following Soviet military award does not have crowns on the helmet, it seems that Alexander Nevsky defeats Tsar Mikhail here too.

Who is Alexander I anyway?

The Alexandria Column, also known as the Alexandria Column, is the center of Palace Square in St. Petersburg, Russia. The monument was erected after the victory of the Russians in the war with Napoleonic France. The column is named after Emperor Alexander I, who ruled from 1801–1825.

Below are all four sides of the pedestal.


The question is: what does all this have to do with the war of 1812? In fact, what kind of Alexander I are we dealing with here - with Alexander the First or with Alexander Nevsky?

Where is one person, or part of the weaponry dating back to 1812?

If this monument really belongs to the war of 1812, then what do we not know about our history?

What war is this monument really dedicated to?

What did the artist smoke, thus depicting the events of 1612? Where are the stirrups and why do Dacians seem to be fighting some of Joshua's soldiers in Jericho?

The events depicted in the aforementioned bas-relief simply must have occurred before AD 750, if dogmatic chronology is to be followed.

Three crowns

The helmet has three distinctive crowns. There are not many coats of arms with three crowns. One of the most obvious will be the coat of arms of Sweden.

King Arthur

King Faramond

Faramond, (Faramund), is the legendary early king of the Franks, first mentioned in the 8th century Liber Historiae Francorum, where he is depicted as the first king of the Franks.

Food for Thought: Ferdinand of Tyrol in Hungarian Tournament Costume.

I do not know who exactly is wearing our helmet, but I doubt that it was Pozharsky.

Whoever made the bas-relief, he specially (a prerequisite) depicted the crown visible from this angle on the helmet. Hence, this element is important.


Minin and Pozharsky

Let's return to the monument to Minin and Pozharsky.


Question: What is wrong with this monument?


Celebration for the coronation of Tsar Nicholas II.

Arrival of the Cortege in Red Square, from Le Petit Journal, May 31, 1896 (color engraving) by Meyer, Henry (1844-99);

In an earlier version, Minin stood with a chiton belt, in a cloak, and pointed to Moscow with an outstretched hand. Prince Pozharsky, also dressed in a tunic, in a strongly fluttering cloak and a Roman helmet, rushes forward.

The chiton is a form of tunic that is attached to the shoulder, worn by men and women of Ancient Greece and Rome.

With him, everything is not so, he generally depicts not the events to which he is supposedly dedicated. Please note that in 1896 the monument is different from the one we see now.


Jericho helmets, Scythian helmets, sandals, without stirrups, shields of the Aegis … it's as if it's taken from some biblical scene, I don't know … Battle of Jericho? Joshua versus the Amalekites?

Joshua 24:13 - And I gave you the land where you did not toil, and the cities that you did not build, and you live in them; vineyards and orchards of oil that you have not planted, you eat.

Now let's look at the shield that Pozharsky was holding


On the shield is the Holy Face of Jesus. Why did Pozharsky have Jesus on his shield in 1612?

According to historical information:

In 1552, the Russian army undertook a campaign against Kazan.. Chronicles say that Tsar Ivan the Terrible, approaching the walls of the besieged city, ordered "to unfold Christian banners, that is, a banner with the image of the Savior on it." Further in the chronicle it was specified that “the banner was written on a worm-shaped stone,” that is, it was crimson. After the capture of Kazan, a solemn prayer service was served at the banner of the "Merciful Savior," and the tsar ordered to build a church on the spot where the banner stood during the blockade of the city. This historical banner has survived to this day in the Kremlin Armory. It has a length of 4 arshins 2 vershoks (about 3 meters), a height of 2 arshins 2 vershoks (1.5 meters). The image of Christ is embroidered in gold, silver and silk on scarlet taffeta; on the slope there are two crosses and five stars; the edge is trimmed with gold and crimson silk.


As for Pozharsky, on his supposed flag was "The Appearance of the Archangel Michael to Joshua, the son of a nun."


In Bulgaria, Serbia and Russia "Yeshua" is called Joshua. "Jesus" is an English derivative of the Greek transliteration of "Jehoshua" through Latin. In the Septuagint, all instances of the word "Yeshua" appear as "Ἰησοῦς" (Iesous), the closest Greek pronunciation of Aramaic: ישוע Yeshua. Thus, in modern Greek, Jesus is called “Jesus son of Naue” (τοῦ Ναυή) to distinguish him from Jesus. This is also true in some Slavic languages, following the Eastern Orthodox tradition (for example, Joshua, Joshua and Navin, in Bulgarian, Serbian, and Russian, but not Czech Republic).


It is hard not to mention that Ermak had a flag similar to the one that Pozharsky had. What a coincidence …


In the Armory there are 3 blue banners of Yermak, under which he conquered the Siberian Khanate of Kuchum in 1582. The canvases are more than 3 yards (2 meters) long; on one embroidered images of Christ and St. Michael, on the other two - a lion and a unicorn, ready for battle.

Back to the Jericho helmet


"Jericho Hat" is a very strange name. If this helmet had never been to Jericho, did not come from Jericho, or if its real owner had nothing to do with Jericho … why did they call it "Jericho Hat"? If not for the battle of Jericho, would we care about any city of Jericho?

Meanwhile: The lack of archaeological evidence has prompted archaeologists such as William J. Dever to characterize the story of the fall of Jericho as "complete fiction."

Scholars almost unanimously agree that the Book of Joshua has little historical value. Who knows, maybe the wrong location is the true reason they can't find any archaeological evidence of the Battle of Jericho?

Do you get my point?

Joshua and Moses or Minin and Pozharsky?


Lithograph by Ya. G. Schreiner, c. 1840 g.

Three crowns


Coat of arms of Peter the Great, 1696

In 1472, Ivan III married Sophia Palaeologus. She was a Byzantine princess, a member of the imperial family of the Palaeologus. Beginning in 1472, the Russians acquired their own two-headed eagles, and apparently as a result of this marriage.


The emblem of the Palaeologus dynasty (1400s) - ΈΜβληΜα της δυναστείας των Παλαιολόγων - Two-headed eagle with a similem (dynastic code) of the Paleologues in the center. The double-headed eagle motif was used as the emblem of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) in the 14-15th centuries, when the Palaeologus dynasty ruled.

The three crowns on the helmet symbolize the three kingdoms

1: Idumea is a historical region and kingdom in the south of the Israel Highlands. In the north it borders with Judea, with the southern tip of the Dead Sea and the country of Moab, in the east with the desert of the southern Transjordan, in the south with the bay, in the west with the Sinai Peninsula.

2: The Moabites are a related Semitic tribe to the Jews on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea. According to the Bible, the Moabites are descended from Abraham's nephew, Lot, and the eldest daughter of the latter

3: Amorites, Amorites, Amorites - a nomadic West Semitic people of ancient Western Asia, who spoke the Amorite language.

As far as I understand, we do not have serious archaeological evidence of the events described in the Bible. What if they are looking in all the wrong places? Maybe for this reason archeology cannot prove the events described in the Bible?

Saint Alexander and Saint Joshua

Alexander Nevsky and Joshua


Alexander Nevskiy


I think there is a possibility that our Alexander Nevsky and Joshua, aka Jesus, the son of Naue, were one and the same person. Alexander Nevsky (I suppose the same applies to Joshua) is a rather dubious historical figure, but I believe that there is a real person hiding behind religious stories.

Joshua is a biblical character, according to the Old Testament, the leader of the Jewish people during the conquest of Canaan, the successor of Moses. His activities are detailed in the Book of Joshua

In its current form, it is named "Nevsky" because of the Battle of the Neva in 1240 AD. The existence of the battle is known only from Russian sources. There is no reference to the description of the Battle of the Neva in Swedish sources.

In general, all these famous personalities "Nevsky, Minin, Pozharsky" unexpectedly emerge in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and become "historical figures." Isn't that weird?

The whole history that we supposedly know, which is studied in schools, etc., etc. is some incredible mess and a pile of scattered, corrected, rewritten facts, adjusted to the required direction.

I find it difficult to understand how some things are possible in the physical world with a linear timeline.

Thousands of physical "ancient" artifacts (especially Roman ones) have been discovered since 1800. Almost all of them were discovered before 1800.

The appearance of most of these "ancient" artifacts does not support the idea that they spend thousands of years in the mud.

Our elite around 1800 are dressed like the ancient Romans.

Our 19th century monuments are predominantly "ancient" in nature.

Triumphal gates


In full view and probably everyone saw them, if not personally, then in books, photos or on TV.

The third and oldest surviving Arc de Triomphe in Moscow was built in 1829-1834 by Joseph Bove to commemorate Russia's victory over Napoleon.

It replaced an earlier timber structure built after the Napoleonic Wars in 1814. The arch was built of bricks and faced with cut stone. The columns and statues were made of cast iron. The Seiuga (chariot drawn by six horses) was created by Giovanni Vitali.


Seiuga is a chariot with six horses. It was used in ancient Rome for sports, locomotion, and ceremonies. Such a chariot required a high degree of skill from the one who drove it.

Let's read what is written on the arch.


The bilingual inscription in Russian and Latin reads:

"These triumphal gates were laid in commemoration of the triumph of Russian soldiers in 1814 and the resumption of the construction of magnificent monuments and buildings of the first capital city of Moscow destroyed in 1812 by the invasion of Gauls and 12 peoples with them."

"The invasion of the Gauls and with them 12 peoples" - how do you? You just look at the arch and its sculptures - a chariot, armor, clothes, weapons, everything is ancient Roman.

The arch was restored in 1936 as part of the reconstruction of the center of Moscow initiated by Joseph Stalin. The current arch was built according to the original design by Beauvais in 1966–68.


Our "Christian" architecture of the 19th century is nothing more than a kind of ancient Greek and Roman version. I think this "antique" style was present until the 1770s.


Wars, empires and world historical figures were not as numerous as they want us to think.

Between 475 and 2021 A.D. we will have only 300-350 years of real time.

The technology that emerged after ~ 1850 AD was the technology that existed before 475 AD.

By my reckoning, AD 475 was roughly 150-200 years before AD 1850.

"Napoleonic" wars happened many times on paper, but in reality - only once.

This war was global, we just need to combine all simultaneous (and sometimes not) conflicts into one.

Who were the enemies in this war?

I think these big guys fought each other and used the "lesser guys" in the war. By "big guys", I mean most likely an extraterrestrial civilization. These are the same notorious "gods from heaven" who "had a lot of fun" on our planet.

The lesser guys are us. We were probably used, but this was not our conflict.

Popular by topic