Western scientists pretended (and this is not our supposition, as we had a possibility to assure ourselves in it on different occasions), that they "didn't read" the works of N.А.Morozov. On the same way, as now some of them pretend, that they "don't read" our works. And just "by chance" put into circulation the term New Chronology while in Russia it already loudly sounded for a long time. Instead of translation of the books of N.А.Morozov and their study on the West other books on the equal topic were written and published. But compared to N.А.Morozov, these were not scientific, but pseudoscientific books, which were easy to criticize. But as their conclusions slightly reminded conclusions of Morozov, western reader got abruption to the name of Morozov: "Oh, this is one more representative of catastrophism, insisting that the Earth axis has moved one day and for some reason (not clear, when and why) and something happened in history because of this. Let's not spend our time for reading this trifle". This is natural human reaction. Everything is aimed at this.
What exactly has happened? At the West even a "scientific" stream, connected with the name of Russian emigrant Immanuil Velikovskiy, appeared. Due to this NOTHING HAS BEEN TOLD about Morozov.
I.VELIKOVSKIY (1895-1979) – an outstanding doctor-psychoanalyst. Was born in Russia, lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and USA. Considerably resting upon earlier works of N.А.Morozov, BUT NOT MENTIONING THEM ANYWHERE, he wrote a number of books about ancient history, where, following N.А.Morozov listed several contradictions in the ancient history. I.Velikovskiy borrowed from Morozov an important idea of identification of several ancient dynasties, from which came out a need to cut (in time) the written history. For example, I.Velikovskiy in his book "Ramses II and his time" states, that the dynasty of Hittite doubles the dynasty of Chaldeans.
I.Velikovskiy made an attempt "to explain" discovered by Morozov contradictions (we will repeat, without any links on him) using "a theory of catastrophism". At the West I.Velikovskiy is considered to be a founder of critical school in chronology. But in fact he tried to defend the chronology of Scaliger from too big transformations. Replacing radical ideas of N.А.Morozov with their "weak substitute". The fact that in Western Europe the works of I.Velikovskiy on history were known much better, than considerably earlier and much more substantial works of N.А.Morozov served a significant brake for the development of new chronology in Western Europe in the XX century.
Why for the struggle with ideas of N.А.Morozov exactly the catastrophism was taken on board? Except the listed above reasons there seemed to be the following consideration. Many ideas of Morozov were based on astronomical calculations, in particular on the datings of ancient eclipses, described in chronicles. When dating these eclipses not looking on the Scaligerian chronology, he got not ancient, proposed by historians, but much later medieval dates. How to struggle with this? – historians asked themselves. There are no scientific arguments. They decided to turn to demagogy and fraud.
They did like this. First, based on Morozov (but not mentioning a word about him), they retold some found by them contradictions in the "ancient" history and also found by them identifications of some "ancient" phantom dynasties. But with this, what is interesting, they borrowed only his most "smooth" statements that lead first just to insignificant shifts in the chronology. Silence was accurately kept about bigger Morozov's changes in the Scaligerian history. (Besides, our results showed that even N.А.Morozov didn't fully realize the scale of the required reconstruction of chronology. Our concept differs from Morozov's one with cutting of the ancient chronology at least for one thousand, and for many chronicles even for one and a half – two thousand years).
Then based on nothing "theory" was created, that IN THE MIDDLE AGES there was some CATASTROPHE in a solar system. Allegedly it considerably moved the Earth axis, after what the axis started to move according to different laws, than it has been before. According to which ones - "the catastrophists" don't clarify. And this is not important for them. The main result, which they "receive" and which they immediately start to use (in order to diminish the impression from astronomical results of Morozov) –is that it is impossible to calculate based on modern astronomical theory moon and sun eclipses, which were for epochs earlier than "the year of catastrophe". With that they every time intelligently place "the year of catastrophe" where they need.
For example, in the last time, probably, already after our works, it was placed in the XIV-XV centuries in order to exclude a critical discussion not only about the Ancient times, but even about the Middle Ages. It is clear, that the placement of the Earth axe really influences, and rather considerably, on the fact of visibility of the eclipses in one or another region. If desired, it is possible to announce, that "the terrible catastrophe" changed even the movement pattern of the Moon in the space, what of course fully changes the "timetable of eclipses". After this it is very convenient to announce, that calculations of Morozov (and later ours), couldn't be continued deep into the centuries. So the Scaligerian chronology gets a "reliable defense" from astronomical method of Morozov.
It is worth saying, that after publication of our work on dating of star catalogue "Almagest", "the catastrophists"
(in particular, Christopher Marks – a patriarch of catastrophism and a former employee of I.Velikovskiy), being absolutely sure in the reality of his "method", in triumph announced us that all our astronomical calculations lost sense in the light of their remarkable "theory of catastrophism".
As in the XIV-XV centuries a "catastrophe has happened" and the Earth axis has moved, the Solar system changed and it is impossible to calculate anything with astronomical method for epochs earlier than the XIV century.
It was very unpleasant for them to realize, that natural movements of the stars, on which our analysis is based, were not subject to catastrophes in the Solar system. No matter of what scale they were. Even if the Earth exchanged places with Jove, this would not influence natural movement of far stars (moving on motionless background of more far stars). The same result would be from Jove.
Worry of "catastrophists" is understandable. Received by us dating of star catalogue of "Almagest" – in the interval from 600 to 1300 years A.D. – undermines one of the most important foundations of the Scaligerian chronology and in point of fact destroys it. Moreover our scientific articles on this subject appeared not only in Russian, but also in English language print. Starting from 1988 they were published in several scientific magazines. And in 1993 our book on this subject in English was published in the USA in a scientific publishing house CRC-Press. And nevertheless Western historians fiercely pretend that they didn't read our works and New Chronology for them is not more than thoughts of David Rohl about three hundred years inconsistencies in the "ancient" history of Egypt allegedly of the second millennium B.C. It is clear that discussions about such small mistakes are not dangerous for the Scaligerian chronology. That's why they take place and even are encouraged, as they just distract attention from really serious problems in chronology.
The idea is simple and intelligent: to vaccinate readers against the ideas of the New Chronology. In medicine it is done like this: first a small dose of poison is injected in order an organism became slightly seek and developed immunity against future probably bigger doses. So it is in history: they "injected" a small dose of the ideas of Morozov and our New Chronology in a distorted light (and under different last names) in order to breed in the society an immunity against the idea about necessity in review of the ancient history
One of the directions of struggle against New Chronology is attempts to fill the books market with low-grade literature on this topic.
Such are, for example, some books of a popular author of modern detectives А.А.Bushkov. Pretending to be an "independent researcher", he rewrote fragments from our books and at the same time convinced readers that in general we were not right. Here, as we think, there is not only desire "to skip over" interesting for many people topic, but also an absolutely conscious struggle against New Chronology, desire to change its run
Another important and rather serious direction of struggle against New Chronology which becomes bigger and bigger in the last time is intentional distortion of the main ideas of New Chronology and their presentation actually in a caricature, but externally solid academic form.