• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Part III. THE CHRONOLOGY AND GENERAL CONCEPTION OF ROMAN AND BYZANTINE HISTORY Fig. 15.2. Scaligerian dating of the events described by the fa- mous mediaeval English chroniclers – Galfridus Monemuten- sis and Nennius. See [577] and [155]. chapter 19 The problem of reconstructing the veracious version of Roman history The amended chronology of Rome and Byzantium nologists of the XVI-XVII century, J. Scaliger and was presented in the works of A. T. Fomenko (see D. Petavius. Most professional historians of our epoch Chron1 and Chron2). It is based on extensive com- do not dispute this version, although its veracity was puter calculations made in the course of analysing put to doubt by a number of scientists. the entire volume of historical and chronological data 2) The historical and chronological version of Sca- available today from the natural scientific point of liger and Petavius contains a number of phantom view. The new chronology of Rome and Byzantium duplicates, or repeated rendition of the same histor- implies that the consensual Scaligerian version of Ro- ical events that are presented as different ones and man and Byzantine chronology is blatantly erroneous. dated to different historical epochs, which are often We call for a revision of the surviving historical separated by centuries and even millennia. sources, which attain a totally new meaning when 3) All the events dated to the epochs that precede analysed from the position of the New Chronology. 1000 a.d. in the version of Scaliger and Petavius are Since Roman history is closely related to the his- phantoms that reflect more recent events in reality. tory of the Mediterranean region in general, we shall Therefore, the veracious documented history begins also be referring to the latter, citing a number of facts around 1000 a.d. the earliest. We are by no means try- related in Chron1, Chron2, Chron5 and Chron6. ing to imply that there had been “no history” prior to that – all we are saying is that no records of earlier 1. events have reached our time. They were replaced by THE CHRONOLOGICAL STRUCTURE OF phantom duplicates of later events in the chronolog- THE MODERN “HISTORY TEXTBOOK” ical version of Scaliger and Petavius. 4) Events dated to the period between 1000 and Let us recollect the primary postulation of the new 1300 a.d. can be divided into two layers, the first one chronology, which was initially formulated by A. T. Fo- corresponding to the events that received correct dat- menko (see Chron1 and Chron2). It can be related ings in Scaligerian version, or the real historical layer in brief as follows. of that epoch. The second layer corresponds to the 1) The consensual version of the global ancient events that were dated incorrectly and reflect later and mediaeval chronology is apparently incorrect. It events of the XIII-XVII century. This is the phantom was first presented in the works of the scholastic chro- layer of the epoch of the X-XIII century, which con- 642 | history: fiction or science? chron 4 | part 3 sists of the events that became misplaced on the time 2. axis. Their correct chronological position corresponds THE PROBLEM OF CHRONOLOGICAL RESULT to the epoch of the XIV-XVI century. In other words, INTERPRETATION IN THE RECONSTRUCTION the period between 1000 and 1300 a.d. as reflected OF THE TRUE ANCIENT HISTORY in the consensual chronological version is a bizarre mixture of real events with correct datings and phan- Unfortunately, the structure of chronological du- tom events whose real datings pertain to later epochs. plicates per se is insufficient for the unambiguous re- 5) As for the historical period that postdates 1300 construction of the ancient and mediaeval history. a.d., the chronological version of Scaliger and Peta- The matter is that the New Chronology can be in- vius reflects it correctly for the most part, although terpreted in a number of ways. in certain cases the chronological shift of 100 years Indeed, let us assume that a mathematical and sta- manifests after 1300. Chronological duplicates only tistical research discovered that the sections, or chap- disappear from the Scaligerian version completely ters, X1,X2,… ,Xn of the erroneous “history text- starting with the XVI century. books” that correspond to the different epochs T1,T2, In other words, the chronology outlined in the … , Tn are in fact duplicates of each other and all re- Scaligerian history textbook can only be trusted from late the same events. How can this formal result be the XVII century the earliest. We shall withhold from conceptualised with the use of familiar historical im- criticising the Scaligerian version presently – the crit- ages? How can we approach such questions as,“When ical part has a long history of its own, which is re- did Julius Caesar live?” and “What language did he lated in detail in Chron1 by A. T. Fomenko. It con- speak?” In other words, how do we write a single ve- tains an analysis of the global chronology according racious chapter instead of several unveracious ones? to the “history textbook” based on the new empirico- First and foremost, we must answer the following statistical methods developed for this particular pur- question: Which ones of the chapters or chronicles pose; they made it possible to locate the parts of the (X1,… ,Xn) can be considered “original events”, or “history textbook” that duplicate each other. It give the most plausible account of the events in ques- turned out that the general system of chronological tion, and which ones are “duplicated events” – those duplicates is rather simple – basically, the modern contain the greatest number of distortions and mis- “consensual history textbook” is a collation of the representations, and should sometimes be consid- same chronicle in four copies, shifted in relation to ered works of historical fiction that only bear a very each other by 333, 720, 1053 and 1800 years, respec- distant relation to the fact. The dating of the origi- tively. nals is an altogether different problem. This is the general construction of the erroneous It is only after this location of original events and chronological version insisted upon by Scaliger and their dating that we can enquire about the chrono- Petavius. However, when studied more attentively, logical and geographical origins of Julius Caesar, for the scheme gets more complex, since every single instance. The answers to such questions shall also be epoch in ancient and mediaeval history contains rather complex, along the lines of:“The biography of minor phantoms of its own, as well as distortions, Julius Caesar is a collation of several historical biog- gaps and erroneous insets. The works of the authors raphies of different persons, their epoch and geo- (see Chron1, Chron2 and Chron3) suggest the ap- graphical location being such-and-such”. We shall plication of several new empirico-statistical methods have to extract these biographies from the very same that allow for more detailed chronological analysis “history textbook”, doing our best to cleanse them and more effective duplicate location. from fictional elements and facts transplanted from The collected methods suggested in Chron1, the biographies of other historical personalities. This Chron2 and Chron3 allow us to find a large num- cannot always be done unambiguously. ber of rather unexpected duplicates pertaining to the Thus, the problem of compiling a “textbook” on historical and chronological version of Scaliger and the ancient and mediaeval history appears to have Petavius. been solved incorrectly by the historical science of chapter 19 the problem of reconstructing the veracious version of roman history | 643 the XVI-XVII century – very much so, in fact. It needs been veracious must inevitably be present in the Sca- to be solved again today. In other words, what we ligerian version of history. Such traces can occasion- need is a new version of the ancient history, free from ally be identified in sources and separated from later chronological errors and contradictions inasmuch as layers. it is possible. The remains of the old tradition usually look like An attempt to do it – vague and hypothetical, as simple and stable formulae, or general concepts re- it happens to be, is presented in Chron1 and Chron5 lated in more or less the same words by different as well as Chron5 and Chron6. There is a tremen- sources. These solidified remnants of the ancient tra- dous amount of work to be done in this direction, and dition turn out to be mines of valuable information. it shall require plenty of effort from the part of many The principle of the correctness of these general con- specialists – in particular, future historians, free from cepts requires the reconstructed version of history to the pressure imposed by the chronology of Scaliger correspond with the remnants of the old chronolog- and Petavius. ical tradition of the XIV-XVI century, which can be The above implies that before we can approach procured from some of the documents that have sur- the reconstruction of the ancient history at all, we vived until our days. We are unlikely to find traces of must conceptualise and formulate the primary any older tradition, since they have become com- methodological principles that shall define the choice pletely obliterated from the documented history of made in ambiguous cases, since, as we have men- humankind. tioned above, ancient history cannot always be re- The principle formulated above is based on the re- constructed with clarity and without any alternative search results of A. T. Fomenko as related in Chron1, versions if we have nothing but formal results that the claiming that the texts that have survived until our New Chronology is based upon.

Load more

  9

Copy Link