Jean Hardouin

the peculiar case of 
Jean Hardouin

Our western history is to say the least, very problematic. That notion is not new. Quite a few literate man came after a long career into the subject to this verdict. One of such was Jean Hardouin. 

Jean Hardouin was a Jesuit living in the 17th century, who counted amongst the great church and council historians in France. At the end of an already long an celebrated career he gradually became convinced that most literary Greek items of the Renaissance were faked. 

Of course it is good to understand that at first he had a motive to arrive at such conclusions. The Renaissance was a precursor of the Reformation and a necessity for the Reformation to occur at all. From this point of view any sources which reformers as Luther, Calvin etc. used were by necessity suspect. Even Augustin didn't escape Jean Hardouin's attention merely by the fact that it was Luther's main source. 

Even though any catholic airing such views in his days would run into severe problems with the authorities, Jean Hardouin never had any problems like that, merely through the fact that his dogmatic view was thoroughly catholic and in fact the idea that there was only one source of authority in the Roman Church, namely that of the Pope, sustained his ideas. 

Yet, even though he was the main chronologist of the Church councils of this day, he was of the opinion that the Council of Trient was the first real council the others merely being spurious regional meetings called by civil authorities and not the Pope. 

The source of the fraud, according to Jean Hardioun,  was a small impious crew of manuscript and coin fakers, often in monasteries, under the authority of Frederic II in the 13th century and Philip II in France in the 14 century and later under the influence of the Medici Doges.

'There existed then an understanding of both civil and religious authority to not expose each others tampering with the antiquity of each others jurisdiction'. In other words they were faking the roots and age of their civilisation. 

Would it be possible to undertake such an enterprise? Jean Hardouin was convinced that as a matter of fact the total library of the Church fathers and ancient Greek writers was extremely limited and could very well have been fabricated within one generation. Thorough study of the Church fathers had convinced Jean Hardouin that they were merely repeats of the same subject and he went as far as to say that even the opponents of the Church (Montanists, Arianism etc.) were faked. 

Nevertheless when in the 16th century finally bible reading became a normal practise and precisely because it was previously forbidden was a cool thing to do, from 1300 until 1500 bible reading was limited to sections read in Church ceremonies and it is exactly during this period that the canon became established. The gospels again were more widely known and there were many of them. Knowledge about the old testament though was extremely limited at the time. 

There definitely are markers, which show at precisely which time the bible was written. The gospels for instance convey a society exactly as the new capitalist culture which arose in the 13th-15th century. The idea of nation hood arises frequently in the Old Testament psalms, but the concept was hardly known before 13th-15th century. A. Fomenko has in his 3rd volume of Chronology definitely convincingly calculated the exact horoscopes used in literature, art  of  'antiquity' and the bible and they all lead to the 13th-15th century. His 3rd volume is his most scientific solid book and conveys research already initiated by his parents. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_II,_Holy_Roman_Emperor

What motive would Frederic II have had? 
When I read through his biography on Wikipedia I noticed that something essential was missing. Namely exactly during the years that allegedly the Mongols through Batu Khan had brought the whole of Eastern Europe to their knees, Western Europe allegedly occupy themselves with petty quarrels between the Emperor and the Pope and German princes and the Emperor. 

Events become a lot more clear if you investigate the idea that Frederic II was a whole lot more oriented towards the East as is acknowledged. The whole of Europe sees him as a traitor, who 'without fight' during the sixth crusade more or less gets Jerusalem given to him by the Sultan. And it is even related that this Jerusalem didn't have any walls at all. As the new Jerusalem as Frederic II would like it to be. 

The same attitude allegedly Frederic II had shown in exactly the years before towards Batu Khan. There was no fight, but an extremely diplomatic understanding between Batu Khan and Frederic II. 

He would become his falconer.

Moreover during and due to the Mongol conquests there had been a major shift in the upper European Nobility. All modern royal lines vanish into obscurity around this period, with the royal wifes having origins from the North of the Caucasus. These were exactly the families involved in the Renaissance. They took the opportunity of the newly important literature from Byzantium and further East, to rewrite them and conceal their own origins. Moreover by in the late Renaissance giving Europe a whole new Art, including a whole new allegedly Greek Art, they could portrait Europes origins as old and white. But in fact Europe had many colored people up to this period. 

There is of course more. Allegedly Innocent IV had written a letter for the election of a new Great Khan  sending William as Ruysbroeck as his envoy. But this is way too soon and would make the voyage of Carpini and William of Ruysbroeck towards the same election. 

It is obvious that the conflict between Innocent IV and Frederic II is of a later date and there is a shift of approx. 50 years and some popes have been inserted at a later date. All of them living in Northern Italy and not in Rome. We may well assume that Innocent IV and Innocent III were much closer together. And Frederic's relation with Innocent III was better as that with his successor. 

That is of course if Innocent III did not exactly die but left after the foundation of Western Papacy had been set and we are convinced of exactly that. And Frederic II as Batu Khan's falconer had much to with it. 

Then of course a lot of re-writing of historical and genealogical records would have been needed at exactly this time. 

Frederic IIs birth in a
Mongol dome tent under
the banner of the white and blue Horde

And of course it does explain Frederic II's behaviour towards the Church and the Pope in particular. Frederic II then knew very well that the Pope, behind all rhetoric, was not more than a very local Western fief lord, sustained by forces the Pope himself could not exactly have fully understood and largely at odds with the geographical  power structure at exactly this time. The world at large was owned by the East. And Frederic II and a few initiates seemed to have been the only ones to have grasped it. 

Also do note that from this time until 1500s the Roman Emperor had very little to with the city of Rome. The king of the Romans allegedly lived in Germany. As such the weapon of the Eagle looked Westwards. Frederic II then was Emperor of the Western block of the empire and in name the protector of the three Western power blocks England, France and Spain.

Such a division existed also over the large east-west section across Eurasia. Europe, the white and blue Hordes and the Mongol Great Khanate.   

What happened?

13th Century. 
What really happened?

Our western history has quite a few focus points, which it deems as turning points and historical moments in the shaping of our (western) world. It may be the founding of Rome or Greece or the middle ages or the Reformation. But rarely your attention will be brought to the Mongol conquest of Europe. 

And yet to me it seems the most important event world-wide as well the root cause the for Renaissance to happen. It also constituted the first world wide war. 

Borjijid family empire. 'the Firm'

A look at the map shows that in one or two generations time the whole world had changed and not to the advantage of Europe. You may say that the mongols had stood at the borders of Germany, but it seems obvious from the facts that these borders weren't even located at the eastern side what is now Germany. But thanks to the diplomacy of Frederic II the impression was well maintained that something like a Holy German Roman empire was functioning independently within the framework. The borders were well beyond Aachen and at the borders of France. 

In fact it left only Central Italy, Spain, France en England and Whales unconquered, an amazing small region compared to the rest of the Eurasian continent  for the Papacy of those days to claim any sort of Lordship of the whole world. Allegedly that is what history claimed they did at exactly this time. 

And yet we are let to believe that Batu Khan left with his task in the family business - to conquer the region westward -  almost achieved allegedly helping out for the rest of his life his cousins and brothers at the eastside of his Ulus. (domain).

Let us first turn the 'facts' as conveyed by our western interpretation of events.:

1. The great Ogedai Khan, son of Genghis Khan and brother of Jochi Khan Batu Khan's father had died and a successor would be elected as only family members would be eligible. 

2. Subutai of Uriankhi, Batu Khan's general and youth protegee of Ghengis Khan with Turkish family roots - proving the Borjijids' origin was only later safely transported into Mongolia - who was the mastermind behind Batu Khan's campaigns advised Batu Khan to stop and attend the Kuraltai (meeting) en become elected himself.

3. The sons of Ogedai Khan kept postponing the election for a long time especially Guyuk, in order to keep the office in the family of Ogedai Khan, for which reason Batu Khan found himself in a catch 22 situation and out of frustration gave up European plans and made himself useful for the family enterprise later - as did his general - fighting in East Siberia and China.

4. There they established a barbarian Mongol culture inferior to everything that further happened in Europe.

So far so good.. 

1. From the report of Piano Carpini though it appears that Batu Khan was the intermediate stop on the journey of this friar to the election (or self instalment) of Guyuk Khan son of Ogedai. Carpini first visited the Northern Eastern and German princes to investigate their being prepared to detach themselves from tribute to the Great Khan and Batu Khan - apart from being privy to that and doing nothing to stop it - did send him onwards towards the Kuraltai making it very clear he himself had no intention in going. 

2. It was not the sons of Ogedai, but his widow acting as regent, who kept postponing the elections, obviously because of the age of Ogedai's sons. 

3. Batu Khan's strategy seemed to be to wait and let the situation at the court of the Great Khan deteriorate, but finally after three years did intervene and had the widow poisened. Not to become Great Khan himself. He still - also according to a European source, this time William of Ruysbroeck - was not interested and the only family member not present. Many members of the family as was the mother of Tolui Khan the youngest son of Genghis Khan turned to Batu Khan for a final break through and Tolui Khan and his sons continued the office of Great Khan. His sons and Batu Khan's sons established the Golden Horde and the Ilkhanate in the middle east resulting in above dead-lock of Western Europe. 

There is a very good reason why Batu Khan and Subutai his general in these years did not take up their further conquest of Europe. It would have proved not to be a good strategy to do that at this stage. They would only have brought the whole of Europe under the influence of the Great Khan, whereas it was abundantly clear that there was no suitable recognition for themselves. 

Batu Khan knew that as son of Jochi Khan his family clan would never achieve prominence in the eyes of the other side of the family branch. But he himself or Subutai having any further career on the east side of the empire is to put it mildly apocryphal. 

There is also a slight possibility that in this period Batu Khan and his general Subutai, who really could claim most of the credit, had some differences of opinion. 

But I have another theory, which is worthy of exploration. Whilst Batu Khan was waiting and exercised a papal sort of political and spiritual role Subutai did not entirely desist from the expansion of the empire. Subutai then was the identity of the ancestor of Robert the Bruce and with William the conqueror established base in Scotland. William the conqueror then was a shadow crossbreed between the 'norman' Batu and Subutai's brother Jelme of Uryankhi inserted later into British early history 

This left four regions open in Europe Iberia, the central region in Italy, France and the southern part of the British Isles or Avalon (Alban). 

XVI century map of Area between
Black and Caspian Sea

According to the above map the names of these regions were not original European names.  Albania (Alban) is the old name Albion for England. The name England itself came from the last Byzantine Emperors the Angelos, who fled to England. Iberia is next to it. Also Spain derives from Hispania or Chaspian. The name France comes from the Franks which was another name for the Greeks.  The names are copies of the namges of the region from which the Uryankhis (Orange) originated. 

Apparently Batu Khan - with his general Subutai and his own set of motivs - had decided upon a whole different strategy for Europe.  A strategy which gave Batu Khan a chance to turn the table on the prospects of his own family branch, the Jochids. Moreover - and here they proved to be political geniuses - they would postpone judgement on what culture should govern the Golden Horde, by establishing three kinds of dystinct competing regions, all three though under the spiritual direction and authority of the spiritual Vice-King within the Horde, Batu Khan. 

What Subutai and Batu Khan did in their own reserved domain for Western Europe again was a copy what the Great Khan had done with the whole Northern region of the world, dividing it into three sections to be governed by three different sections of the Borjijid family.

Out of Subutai's region would grow the Stewarts, closely related to the Oranges and Anjous in France. Iberia would soon be incorporated into the Holy German Roman empire and compete with the Papacy for political power, whereas France maintained its own typical orthodox jewish/greek form of Catholicism for a long time. 

Batu Khan himself probably from this period towards his death has lived a double role. He changed as easily between a papal role in the West - which did not have any stable seat until after the French Avignon period - and a priestly kingly role as representative of Genghis Khan (vicarius dei) in the East. Batu Khan then was the first real double agent, a role he played to perfection.


"The commandment of the eternal God is, in Heaven there is only one eternal God, and on Earth there is only one lord, Chingis Chan. This is word of the Son of God, Demugin, (or) Chingis 'sound of iron.' "

"This is what is told you. Wherever there be a Mo'al, or a Naiman, or a Merkit or a Musteleman, wherever ears can hear, wherever horses can travel, there let it be heard and known; those who shall have heard my commandments and understood them, and who shall not believe and shall make war against us, shall hear and see that they have eyes and see not; and when they shall want to hold anything they shall be without hands, and when they shall want to walk they shall be without feet: this is the eternal command of God.

"This, through the virtue of the eternal God, through the great world of the Mo'al, is the word of Mangu Chan to the lord of the French, King Louis, and to all the other lords and priests and to all the great realm of the French, that they may understand our words. For the word of the eternal God to Chingis Chan has not reached unto you, either through Chingis Chan or others who have come after him.


He could as easily slip into the role of Innocent III als prester John, whose legacy would live on in the Tibetan Dalai Lama.