The Codes Of Moral Matrices

Major Law Of Matrix
What forms Matrices
Matrix And Self Identity
Beauty and Sex Protocols
Early History of Matrices
Economy and Matrix
Politics and Matrix
Conversion from Hetero to Gay

Revision of History

Social Paradoces
Empire of Israel
View of Garry Kasparov
Investigation of the Historical Dating
Civilizing Events
Egyptian Horoscopes
Classical Texts


"Book of civilization" 
Open Ended Time
"Investigation of English history"
Available books

Take Action

About the website
Disscuss on Google+
The Medieval Empire Of Jews


discuss it  in our forum



        As we already said in the preface, the creation in the Middle Ages of a chronology which predominates even today in historiography, by no means was caused God knows from where by the whim of the lovers of antiquity who had emerged.

  This is in principle an important aspect which demands explanation. Otherwise, it will be complicated to understand what happened with the history, for example, ofEurope in Scaliger's accounts and of his followers. 

     The political situation in the European countries, the aspiration of those holding supreme power to demonstrate to the whole world the antiquity of their race and on this basis to confirm the legitimacy of claims for leadership both within the state and in the international arena have become the chief stimulus in the creation of a traditional chronology. Well, where there's a demand, the supply springs up too.

  Under all monarchal courts immediately are found literate and in many instances, talented people who carry out the most important political orders.

     It is clear, not unselfishly. Often even his life depended on the talent and eagerness of the writer. It didn't cost the all-powerful kings and dukes anything to send an untalented scribbler to the block if his writing didn't suit them.

    And there was another, powerful stimulus:  rewards, honors, scientific titles, and the benevolence of the monarchs. By the way, this works in out time, too.  Not long ago, a certain author showed in his writing that the representatives of the now ruling houses of Europe are the descendants of Jesus Christ!  (D. Kalyuzhny and A. Zhabinsky.  "The Other History of Wars.")  They complimented him for it and an English prince even conferred some awards.

       But let us return to Joseph Scaliger, the founder of the traditional chronology who lived and labored in that epoch. Then, besides the dynastic, the question of the origin of the European peoples was one of the most pressing. The process of their formation in the modern sense of this word took place, and each of them, naturally, wanted to know who the ancestors were.

      The roots were called various things:  both biblical and Greek and barbarian, that is, German and English. The Trojan version of the origin of the French was popular.  The historians situated the centers of ancient cultures in their works not only in Greece and Rome, but also in Spain, England and France. Everything depended on in which of the capitals the writers were living. The very fundamental requirements for roots were equal and common everywhere: the more ancient, the better, and the more "antique" writings are found, the more convincing.

       After the destruction of Rome by the forces of Charles V (1527), there appeared so many new versions of the origin of the European nations that Anthony Grafton, author of a book about Scaliger, compared the historical science of that time with a mirrored labyrinth in which it is impossible to understand and determine anything. Joseph Scaliger (1540 - 1609), philosopher, analyst of ancient texts and mathematician, decided to put everything in order.

      He didn't erect his creations in an empty place, but to a significant degree, adhered to the generally accepted ideas of his epoch. In particular, to the very popular idea of the "succession of kingdoms" or the "succession of monarchies." According to this idea, some kind of a center of worldwide supremacy - a capital of the main king, of an emperor, existed from the very beginning of human history. At that, it changed its location several times.

     As a result, the history somehow was divided into three parts - three monarchies. The first was called the Babylonian. At first they called it Assyrian (Chaldean), then - Persian-Medean. But the capital remained the same - Babylon.

     The second is the Greek or Macedonian with a capital in Alexandria.            It had been thought, and even now it is thought in traditional history that the founder of the monarchy, Alexander of Macedonia made Alexandria his capital.

  Finally, the Roman monarchy. They called it the last worldwide monarchy. It was split into the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. They, for their part, were broken up into a multitude of independent states.

    Such is the overall plan. As the adherents of the new chronology note, its traces are maintained in modern history textbooks. Only instead of "monarchies" the term "succession of civilizations" is used. The first civilization arose in the area between two rivers - the "Babylonian Kingdom," then "ancient" Greece appeared, AND, finally - Italy - the "Roman Empire." (Gleb Nosovskiy, Anatoliy Fomenko "A New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome")

  If one tries to examine the idea of the "three kingdoms" in more detail, then questions unavoidably arise which demand explanations. How in general was the idea born about worldwide monarchies? Why in particular are there three of them and not two or five? On what grounds were the kingdoms placed in the pages of the historic works, in particular in such an order and not in any other kind?

     The adherents of the traditional chronology confidently answer that these are the results of archaeological research, an analysis of the compositions of the ancient authors, linguistic investigations and so on and so forth.  Analyzing these questions in particular, scholars of many generations have created truly vast libraries of works. Hundreds of books, dissertations, surveys, and abstracts written, for example, one after the other about Ancient Greece alone. Is it possible their authors relied on sources which didn't contain a grain of truth, didn't reflect the real situation of things?  That doesn't happen, they tell us. And they will be right.

      The inventive nature of "ancient" sources consists not in the fact that the events described in them and their heroes are fantastic, but in the fact that they, these events, which occurred in the Middle Ages, have been renamed and spread over various epochs and countries in accordance with the ideological and other purposes of noblemanly clients.

     In connection with this, the notion of a "worldwide monarchy" is of special interest for us. In Scaliger's epoch there are no such monarchies.  There exists, as already has been said, a multitude of independent states. From where, then, was the idea of "a center of worldwide supremacy" taken?  I doubt from the imagination of historians. The memory of such a center of such a monarchy was still very fresh in the 16th century. Yes, there was a worldwide empire, at that, according to historic measurements, very recently, and all the states, which arose on its ruins, all the life of the people still bore on itself the indelible stamp of this grandiose state structure, the first in the history of mankind, under the name of the Byzantine Empire.

   As regards the quantity of "worldwide empires," then it needs to be said that Scaliger's predecessors and he himself didn't write history, but computed it. There were whole trends in just such a method of historiography - numerology, cabala and astrology. Scaliger's older contemporary, Jean Boden, composed a solid work, "A Method of Easy Determination of History," in which he showed in particular, how, in his opinion, to detect empires.

    He wrote: "The square of 12 is 144, and the cube is 1,728.  Not one empire in its existence exceeded the value of the sum of these numbers; therefore, the larger numbers should be rejected. Of the spherical numbers included in the great number there are four - 125, 216, 625 and 1,296.  With the aid of several of these numbers. . . . . we permit ourselves to study the miraculous changes of almost all states. . .  . . Starting with the cube of 12, we shall find that the monarchy of the Assyrians from King Ninus to Alexander the Great embodies this number precisely. . . It would be more accurate to say that a single monarchy of the Assyrians and Persians existed than there allegedly existed two different monarchies. In a different case, we are supposed to distinguish the kingdom of the Chaldeans, Medians and Parthians from the Assyrian-Persian monarchy. . ."

       It is impossible to distinguish; otherwise, the great number will be broken. That is, the author discovered an entire world empire, as they say, at the tip of a pen, as a century later the astronomers Leverrier and Adams calculated the planet Neptune. Actually, the "perception of history" is an extraordinarily easy method. And discoveries, as we see, of a strictly limited quantity of empires.

       Relying on an understanding of numerology, the author also easily and naturally finds other chronological dates of various states in antiquity. He juggles the names like a magician:

      "As regards the cube of seven, there also are many examples. This number was chosen by Moses for the establishment of a great festival. From the victory of the Jews over Haman with the aid of Esther to the victory over Antioch, 343 years had passed, and both that and the other victory were gained on the 13th day of the 12th month, which the Jews call Adar. . . That same number of years had passed from the time, when Augustus I established control, until the time when Constantine the Great achieved domination.  The kingdom of the Persians, from Cyrus to Alexander, lasted 210 years - a number which is formed from 30 whole sevens."

     The whole book is built on such arguments. For Boden, history is not the past of mankind, but a design created as a result of manipulations with numbers. He is a faithful adherent of the Masons and numerologists who impart a mystical essence to numbers.

     It wouldn't be worth talking about Boden's exercises if they weren't used and developed in the works of Scaliger and his followers, especially Petavius. The astrologers, numerologists and prophets are who laid the basis of the traditional chronology. And this is appropriate. One need remember that other methods for the analysis of history still didn't exist then. There were and could not be any other fundamental principles besides those designated in the Bible and in a number of mystical studies.

      Thus, numerology for Scaliger and his followers is not a questionable mind game, but a serious method of historic research.

    One need recognize that they were executing a task of grandiose complexity:  they were forming a plan of the development of all world history! No one after them has undertaken such a fundamental problem. They wrote, more than once, numerous volumes of writings with the envelopment of the majority of countries and peoples, but in the main it was the very same plan of Scalger and Petavius.

     What is especially important, in this plan such a structural-forming medieval result also is used as the theory of historic cycles.

       Quite a number of the names of the disciples of their theory have been preserved. Traditional historiography relates them to various epochs and peoples.  Here are both Ancient Greece, and Rome, and China and Central Asia. The Roman historian Polybius supposedly as early as before the start of the Christian Era wrote a 40 volume "General History," in which it was based on the notion of "historic cycles."  

      Polybius and his confederates examined the history of society as a rotation, as a movement along a closed circle with a periodic return to the starting point. This meant that mankind moves endlessly along a wheel, stretched out in time.

  Then an understanding of the cycle as a spiral began to prevail, the repetition of analogous, but distinct phases in a forward movement, an undulating and progressive development.  (Yuriy Yakovets "Cycles.  Crises.  Forecasts"  1999)  As is explained in the books on "cycles," all great phenomena and facets of life also have their own "spirals," and each country, it is clear, also. They endlessly are superimposed on each other, resembling on the whole the entangled turns of barbed wire.

    We will not examine the validity of such a vision of history.  Perhaps there are its own reasons in it. Let us say only that it too now is enjoying relative popularity. In the times of Scaliger it was overwhelming. And it allowed the chronologists to arrange historical events as the theory suggested.  And if they discovered that, let us assume, on the coil of "ancient" Greece, which corresponds to today's coil, there is no event similar to it, that has happened now, and then they sent a duplicate of such an event into extreme antiquity. Since history is repeated, that means at some time the very same thing happened as today.

   At the same time, history should have been sufficiently consistent and allowed to fabricate solid and convincing genealogical rulers and to fill the past as if it were with significant events which have great moral and educational significance for the descendants.  Scaliger and his followers in the literal sense of the word created history and were convinced that they were doing a good thing.  

            They fabricate history, unfortunately, in all epochs, including too in ours, and in all countries, recasting it in accordance with present political interests.           

      Let us look at how the medieval reality of "ancient" Greece was reflected in history. What do we know about this country?

   We know, to our delight, much. To our delight for the reason that none of the originals of the "ancient Greek" compositions ever were in the hands of even the most conscientious researchers. Some are only references in works ascribed to various chroniclers, frequently also to the legendary.

     At that, these works appeared after the millennium of the "Dark Ages," when no one and nowhere recalled anything about a Greece and a Rome. In the Middle Ages themselves both the volumes of ancient historians and the poems of Homer and also of other Hellas poets, and legends and myths were found suddenly. . . Where they were hidden for ten centuries, no one knows. And they still say that there are no miracles in the world.

     But we will not find fault.

    The traditional views are such:  the history of Ancient Greece starts from the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. -- with the rise of the first state formations on the island of Crete, and ends in the 2nd - 1st centuries B.C., when the Greek and Hellenistic states of the Eastern Mediterranean were conquered by Rome and included as part of the Roman Mediterranean power.   

     We shall single out several bright moments in this history, which are the most well-known to the readers.  One of the most popular is the Trojan War, described in the poems of the great blind poet, Homer. Historians have been drawing from them over the centuries one or the other signs of the past. The poems "Iliad" and "Odyssey" became, per se, a source for the construction of a whole section of Greece's history.

   The Trojan War, as the traditional historians write, is a war of the Achaeans against Troy at the end of the 13th century B.C.  

     According to mythological tradition, the abduction by Paris, the son of the Trojan king Priam, of the beautiful Helen, the wife of the King of Sparta, Menelaus was the casus belli.  Then irregulars of kings from almost all the areas and cities of Greece, who at sometime had laid claim to Helen's hand and were connected by a vow to always aid him whose wife she became, were assembled.  According to Iliad there were 100,000 warriors in the Achaean force, and 1,186 ships.  

    An attempt to obtain Helen's return by negotiations (the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus to Priam) failed, and a siege of the city began which lasted more than 9 years.

      The events of the final, 10th year of the war make up the content of "Iliad."  Apollo's priest, Chryses, asked Agamemnon to return to him a daughter who had been taken captive, Chryseis, but was refused.  Apollo, who had been aiding the Trojans, inflicted a plague on the Achaean forces.  In order to propitiate the god, Agamemnon returned Chryses' daughter, but in exchange took Briseis from Achilles as his prisoner.  The angry Achilles refused to take part in the war.  The Achaeans began to meet with failure after this, and many heroes were casualties.  

     Only when the Trojans burst into the Achaean camp and began to threaten the ships did Achilles send his friend Patroclus, having given him his own armor.  The Trojans ran to the protection of the fortress walls, but Patroclus died by Hector's hand.  Achilles, avenging his friend and in new armor forged by Hephaestus, entered the battle and killed Hector, desecrating his body. Hector's father, the old Priam, on coming to Achilles prayed for the return of his son's body.  At the sight of the father's grief, Achilles softened and gave back Hector's body.  "Iliad" ends with the funerals of Patroclus and Hector.               

    Excavations in the places referred to in the myths about the Trojac war supposedly confirm the historicity of a huge military clash of Achaeans with the tribes of the northwestern part of Asia Minor in the beginning of the 13th Century B.C.  So write the traditional historians.

     They suppose that the fall of Troy occurred in 1225 B.C. The precision of the date is astonishing if one considers that no written sources which confirm it exist. Well and when did Homer live?  According to the Columbian Encyclopedia (U.S.), the poems "Iliad" and Odyssey were written by the poet for an aristocratic audience in Asia Minor before 700 B.C. That is, if one is to believe this report, the author lived 500 years after the war. Just how come one can write beautiful verses and about events of such long standing? One can expect everything from poets. But, you see, Homer didn't write anything, not ever:  he was blind.  Moreover, his poems, written in small print, take up 700 pages!

   Let us assume Homer possessed a staggering memory and recalled all the lines composed by him. But you see, the poems weren't written during down his lifetime as well. Commentators report to readers that a special commission in Athens wrote down the "Iliad" and Odyssey" for the first time several hundred years later.  How did these works then get to the commission?

     The traditional historiography promotes the following version:  fellow citizens of the poet learned by heart all 700 pages, then retold them to new audiences, who in their own turn, to the next generations, and thus it was continued for several centuries.

     For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the 20th century knows several outwardly similar cases. When the Kirghiz, who live in Central Asia, received their written language for the first time (the first half of the 20th century), their national oral epos "Manas" finally was fixed on paper, the text of which was handed down from generation to generation.  In Uzbekistan in that very same decade, the "Alpamysh" epos was written down. Musicians and poets used special techniques and methods for the fixation of the famous Uzbek "Makom," the popular sung legends of hoary antiquity.  

   It would seem, in relation to "Iliad" and "Odyssey," one also can assume such a variant. But all the trouble is in the fact that these poems over many centuries are the "Dark Ages"! - they were not known to anyone. The traditional historians themselves write: "In medieval Europe, they knew Homer only through the quotations and references from Latin writers and Aristotle.  At the end of the 14th century, the Italian humanists became more closely acquainted with Homer. . . Only in 1723 did the first translation of the "Iliad" appear, done by the poet Anton Maria Salvini".   

    It is asked, where then was the text of the Homeric compositions for nearly 2,000 years?  In which heads were they kept? And did a blind poet by the name of Homer exist in any event?

    Vico (1668-1744), the author of the work "Principles of the New Science Concerning the Common Nature of Nations" thought that the Homeric poems were written by various authors and in various epochs. He, as also many others, started from the works themselves. They were written as magnificent verse, polished to perfection, and strike one with a wealth of vocabulary and persistent expressions, and this testifies beyond controversy to the fact that the author or authors were grounded in the solid poetical traditions of their time. However, we know neither Homer's predecessors nor followers. As early as the 20th century, there existed the opinion that Homer created in proud solitude. On the other hand, the composition of the poems is loose, full of long, drawn out passages, unnecessary insertions and digressions, which don't relate to the subject. For specialists, this is serious evidence of the fact that more than one author had art and part in the creation of Iliad and "Odyssey."

      A question about the authorship of the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" was put forward in 1795 also by the German scholar Friedrich August Wolf in a forward to an edition of the Greek text of the poems. Wolf considered the creation of a large epos in an illiterate period as impossible, suggesting that the tales were created by various poets.

    Scholars were divided into "analysts," followers of Wolf's theory (the German scholars Karl Lachmann, A Kirchhoff with his theory of "small eposes;" G. Herman and the English historian George Grote with their "theory of the basic kernel," in Russia F.F. Zelinskiy shared it) and the "unitarians," adherents of a strict unity of the epos (the translator of Homer, Johann Heinrich Voss and the philosopher Gregor Wilhelm Nitzsch, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Wolfgan von Goethe, and Hegel in Germany, and N.I. Gnedich, V.A. Zhukovsky and Alexander Pushkin in Russia.)  

 At the same time, however, not one of them doubted that nonetheless there had been a Trojan War.

      The archaeological digs performed later, in particular by Heinrich Schliemann literally according to Homer's poems, also somehow showed that the Trojans at sometime had been beaten with the Achaeans there in particular where the "Iliad" indicated.    Contemporary commentators of the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" are in full rapture from Schliemann:   "The sensational discoveries of G. Schliemann in 1870 - 80 have shown that Troy, Mycenae and the Achaean strongholds are not myths, but reality.

  .  The consistencies of a number of his finds in the fourth tunneled tomb in Mycenae with Homer's accounts have amazed Schliemann's contemporaries.  The impression was so strong that Homer's epoch for a long time began to be associated with the period of the flourishing of Achaean Greece in the 14th - 13th centuries B.C."  

   However, in other works devoted to the Trojan War, the traditional historians just as joyfully write: "Like Columbus, he opened up a world more astonishing that that which he had searched.  These riches were many centuries older than Priam and Hecuba; these graves were not the tombs of the Atrides, but ruins of an Aegean civilization in continental Greece, just as ancient as the Minoan epoch of Crete.  While not suspecting it himself, Schliemann confirmed the truth of Horace's famous line: vixerunt fortes ante Agamemnona - "Brave men were living before Agamemnon."  

      So, finally, did Heinrich Schliemann discover Troy or something else?  No one knows. Indignation bursts from archaeologists when they recall Heinrich Schliemann. They write that he was a self-taught person, had digs while not observing any rules and destroyed beyond hope whole cultural groups at the site of an ancient settlement, which arbitrarily was called Troy by him. That is how the discoverer turned out.

     As regards the Trojan War itself, then it turns out there is evidence of its immediate participants. That is, there was. And these participants are called Dictis and Dares Phrygius. Only they didn't live in great antiquity, but in the Middle Ages and wrote not in Greek, but in the Latin language. At that, their "dry and monotonous account of the facts of the siege" was thought of more highly in those times than "Homer's incredible poem." In particular, not just anybody writes in such expressions but the traditional historians themselves.

   The journals of Dictis and Dares gave birth in medieval Europe to a multitude of works which are combined today under the title of the "Trojan Cycle."  And their fame eclipsed the fame of Homer until the 17th century itself:  "Dares Phrygius became one of the most well-known writers of antiquity."    

      But, perhaps, Dictis and Dares also were invented?  Nothing like it. Both of them are mentioned in Homer's poems. If one recalls that the text of "Iliad" and "Odyssey" appeared for the first time only in the 14th century, then everything falls into place. They really existed and really wrote their journals long before the author or authors of the poems which afterwards mentioned them in their own compositions.  

     There is an interesting fact in the history of the Middle Ages: supposedly in the 8th - 9th centuries A.D. at the court of Charlemagne there lived the famous poet Englebert.  And he bore the name of Homer! Would he one way or the other give his own name to the Greek variant of the description of the Trojan War?

      However, we won't persist in this, because there is one more fact worthy of mentioning. The 19th century German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius in the thorough monograph, "A History of the City of Athens in the Middle Ages," gives a detailed alphabetized index of the names of rulers, heroes and warriors. Among them is also the family Saint Homer, that is St. Homer, who played a noticeable role in the history of Italy and Greece in the 13th Century A.D. Representatives of this family were participants of the "Trojan" war of the 13th century. It is fully assumable that someone of the representatives of this family - a remarkable poet of the 14th - 15th centuries - collected and wrote down the family legends of the family of Homers about this war in the form of the two grandiose epic poems.

   In any case, "Iliad" and "Odyssey" are belated works of art which were created in the Renaissance epoch as the poetic peak of all the "Trojan Cycle."  (Gleb Nosovskiy, Anatoliy Fomenko "Russia and Rome," Vol. 1)

   The Trojan War in "ancient" Greece is an imaginary reflection of the  Gothic War, which occurred in the early Middle Ages. A detailed comparison of the two wars shows their coincidence even in trifles. We shall cite some of the results of the research described in the book "Russia and Rome."   

      The Trojan kingdom knows seven kings who ruled in sequence.   The first is the founder of the city and all the state.  The fall of Troy and the death of the kingdom occurs with the seventh king.

    The Roman Empire, described by Livy, also has seven emperors who ruled in sequence. The first is the founder of the city and the state.  Rome comes to an end and is turned into a republic during the seventh empire.

     Both wars last almost equally:  the first - 10, the second - 12 years.  

     The Trojan kingdom was destroyed twice. And these collapses are the only ones in its history.  

       In the history of the Roman Empire (according to Livy) and its duplicate - Roman Empire III (in the West), there also were two collapses. The second and final is the Gothic War. These two collapses are also the same in the history of Roman Empire III.   

     The two newcomer-strangers Jason and Hercules destroyed the first Trojan kingdom.  "Newcomers from the West. . . captured the city" ("Trojan Legends")

     The two newcomer-strangers Odoacer and Theodoric destroyed the "purely Roman" Empire (First Empire), having invaded from the northwest.

  After the first destruction, the Trojan empire, in essence also becomes Trojan:  earlier it had been called the Dardan Settlement.

  After the first collapse, the Roman Empire in the West changes its name. It is turned into an Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. A Tarquin-ruled dynasty.

     The Trojan name arose from the name of the new king, Troil, who "built more than others in the city and gave it his own name - Troy."  

    A new name appears at the end of the Roman Empire II - the Emperor Trajan.

     The newcomer Greeks complete the second and final destruction of the Trojan kingdom.

    The second and final collapse of the Roman Empire III in the West also is the handiwork of the newcomer Greco-Romans.

    The Trojan War flared up because of a woman - a so-called offence to Helen, wife of Menelaus.

    The Tarquin War was caused by an offence to Lucretia. This is most colorfully described by Livy. A quarrel breaks out between the husband rulers of the kingdoms over whose wife is better.   "Each extremely praises his own," and the quarrel soon develops into an armed conflict.

   In the tale about Troy, Paris kidnaps Helen by force.

    According to Livy, Sextus Tarquinius seizes Lucretia and dishonors her. . .

    Don't let the numbering of Roman Empires I, II and III confuse the readers. In the opinion of the adherents of the new chronology, the real Holy Roman Empire was in the 10th - 11th centuries.  The rest, which are referred to by the traditional historiography in various centuries are the imaginary reflections of the Middle Ages.

    The parallels between the Trojan and Gothic wars are endless. Even the famous episode with the Trojan horse coincides.  What is known about it?  It is so huge that several hundred warriors were able to find room inside it. It stands on wooden legs. It in some way got into the city. In "Iliad" it says that the stupid Trojans pulled it into Troy. This is as absurd as the historical joke about the fact that the shepherds of ancient Greece were singing Homer's verses for several hundred years while educated people didn't write down the poems. (Dmitri Kalyuzhny, Aleksandr Zhabinsky)

     Is there anything similar in the Gothic war?  Of course. The Greeks also used guile in the storming of Naples (New Town or New Rome), which they had not been able to take in any way. They penetrated it at night through a huge, recently deserted aqueduct which was a stone tunnel with an exit beyond the fortress walls. In the morning they opened the gates, and the troops who attacked slaughtered the still sleeping defenders of the city.

    The evidence of the fact that the famous Trojan horse is the poetic form of the real aqueduct water supply is not complicated.  The first Trojan chronicles which reached us, as we recall, were written in Latin. And in Latin the word "horse" is written "equa," and water is "aqua." That is, practically the same.  Moreover, the word aqueduct - "aqua-ductio" - "that which leads water" is identical to the word "that which leads a horse" - "equa-ductio." There is a difference in only one vowel.

   Therefore, aqueduct also was changed into a perception of the late foreign authors who confused one vowel, in horse, which called into being  a blossoming of absurd legends about the Trojan horse.

    It must be said that there are a lot of similar events in literature, and it concerns in particular the literature and not the true history. Only the most well-known. We already have talked about the fact that in the translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew to Greek the Reed Sea, on the bottom of which Moses led the Jews during the Exodus from Egypt, was turned into the Red and even remained so in the text of the Scripture. There also is another famous example, but it is somewhat amusing. Charles Perrault, the author of the world-renowned tale "Cinderella," was not writing in the least about a glass slipper which fell off the heroine's foot at the ball. He was writing about a lady slipper, edged with fur. But in the translation from the French, the lady slipper by mistake became a glass slipper, and this was so in keeping with the spirit of the tale, that the slipper has stayed in it forever.

     And so the aqueduct in the passing of centuries in the poems was changed into the Trojan horse.

  The classical period in this story, according to the accepted periodization, embraces the time from the threshold of the 6th and 7th centuries to 338 B.C. Greece had to defend its distinctive character and right to existence in a struggle with the Achaemenid power, which was realizing its expansion to the West. Let us chose one moment in this battle:

      In 480 B.C., a huge Persian army and navy under the leadership of King Xerxes invaded Greece. Despite the heroic resistance of a detachment of Spartans headed by King Leonidas in the Thermopylae ravine, the Persians broke through to Central Greece. The population of Athens fled, the conquerors captured the city and plundered it. The main events occurred in 479 B.C., when the Persians endured two defeats - both on the land and at sea. Greece had been able to defend its independence.

     The legendary battle at Thermopylae of 300 Spartans with the Xerxes horde is well known to the whole civilized world. It is glorified in many works as an example of fearlessness and bravery of people in a struggle for the freedom and independence of their country. The "father of history" Herodotus wrote about it in his monumental work, "The Histories," which is devoted mainly to the wars of the Greeks with the Persians.

     But whether there was such a battle in actual fact and really whether Herodotus lived in the 5th century B.C. evokes deep and well-founded doubts. Having glanced at Ferdinand Gregorovius' writing devoted to medieval Greece, we will find there a detailed description of the same battle. With only one difference: instead of the Spartans, 300 knights were active in it.

      The events in the Middle Ages developed according to the same plan as with "antiquity." (According to the "historic cycle"!) Byzantine and Turkish forces attack the country (1275 A.D.) Much about them is curious, the navy supports them from the sea. They surround the city of Neopatria. The city's ruler, having safely escaped and stealing his way through Thermopylae to Duke Jean la Roche, asks him for help. The latter gathers 300 well armed knights and meets the aggressors in the Thermopylae ravine. By the way, among the knights is Lord de Saint Homer, that is, of the Homers. But this is an aside. At the sight of the large numbers of enemy, Jean la Roche pronounces the famous phrase: "Many people, but few men." It is well known by the fact that, it turns out, the Persian King Xerxes pronounced it 1,800 years before the duke, when he was preparing to battle with the 300 Spartans. Here are Herodotus' precise words: "Then, one can say, it became clear to all, and especially to the king himself, that the Persians have many people, but among them the men are few."

     An absolute coincidence. Therefore, it cannot be accidental. Ferdinand Gregorovius is in some confusion from such a turn: "It seems to me that these words are borrowed from Herodotus.. . Although its expression was able to enter the duke's head simply at the sight of a similar state of affairs." The author, naturally, is in no condition even to imagine that it is a question of one and the same battle, and that, most likely, Herodotus was writing his book not in great antiquity, but as early as after the battle at Thermopylae, not earlier than the 14th century. Otherwise, he would not have found out what the most gallant and worthy duke had said.

      Ferdinand Gregorovius generally notes quite a few coincidences that occurred in the Middle Ages, with the period of "antiquity." For example, of the sort: "Suleiman, the valiant son of Orhan, crossed the Hellespont by night in 1345. . . Here for the first time the Turks gained a foothold on European soil. The Byzantines compared this horde of conquerors with the Persians and even called them that same name." That which they were comparing was not surprising:  people always compare something somehow. But the fact that they called the Turks Persians defies any explanation. This in any case what the German masses of the Second World War called the French, recalling Napoleon's campaigns.

           The next famous event in Ancient Greece is the Peloponnesian War of 431 - 404 B.C. It is described in detail by Thucydides, a military leader and Greek historian of that time, in "The History of the Peloponnesian War."  The traditional historiography reports that his work became will known in Europe thanks to the Latin translation of Lorenzo Valla and the English of Thomas Hobbes. That is, according to historic measurements, quite recently.  Just where did the book disappear over the centuries until it became well-known in Europe?  Traditional historiography is keeping quiet.

     The historians are saying nothing and because of the fact that the views of  Thucydides', who is well-known for his aphorism, are very close to the logical creations of the father of political science, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527 A.D.), who thought that in history one must search for methods of strengthening sovereign power and that its main goal is to serve the interests of the rulers. Thucydides expressed himself more abstractly, but per se he thought the same way: "History is a philosophy in examples." With such an approach there cannot even be talk about an objective account of the movement of events that took place. This is a view of a medieval historian who worked for the sake of certain goals. And you see, between Thucydides and Machiavelli, in the opinion of the traditional chronology, is the abyss of centuries.

     Let us look at what Thucydides writes.        

     In 431 B.C., a war broke out between the Peloponnesian and Athenian naval allies, which had seized all of Greece and received the name of the Peloponnesus.  It continued, with a short period of truce all of 27 years, but Thucydides told only about the first 20 years.

      Adherents of the new chronology think that well-known medieval war in Greece (1374 - 1387), which led to the death of the Catalan state on this country's territory, was its original.

   The people of Navarre and the Athenians participate in the14th century war. A most huge congress preceded it, at which delegates from all the areas of Greece had gathered.   Sparta and Athens collide in the Peloponnesian War. The congress of deputies of the Peloponnesian Alliance preceded it.

        In both cases, the war started a year after the meetings.

        In the Middle Ages, the Peloponnesian and Corinthians invade the enemy's territory. The Corinthian principality is the strongest in Peloponnesia in that epoch.

     The Spartans (Peloponnesians) headed by the Peloponnesian Alliance attack Athens.. In both cases, Athens held out in the first military period.

     In both cases the war bears a violent nature. Both Gregorovius and Thucydides write about it.

      At the end of the war of the 14th century, Nerio Acciaiuoli becomes the leader. A successful military leader, a fine diplomat. His forces capture Athens in particular.

      At the end of the Peloponnesian War, the Spartan Lysander advanced into first place. A successful military leader, a fine diplomat.  He destroyed the Athenian state in particular.      

     The storming of Athens in both cases is identical.

     The victor Nerio establishes a new political order - tyranny. He is now called "the Athenian Tyrant."  
      After the victory, Lysander introduces in Athens "the tyranny of the thirty." This period in the history of the ancient city also is called: "the government of the thirty tyrants." ...  The coincidences fall as if from the horn of plenty in the hands of the goddess Gaia.

     The fact that brought itself to the attention of the adherents of the new chronology is that Thucydides in his "History" described three eclipses which occurred in the Mediterranean Sea area during the war. In as much as eclipses occur with invariable precision and regularity over the course of thousands and thousands of years, the possibility appeared to determine in which centuries in particular and years this astronomical show took place. It turned out that of the temporal segment from 900 B.C. to 1700 A.D.  there are only two precise astronomical calculations.  And both of them are related to the 11th century. In the first solution - for the 1039th, 1046th and 1057th years. In the second, for the 1113th, 1140th and 1151st years. In both cases, the triad embraces 18 years each and the intervals between the eclipses coincide. There has not been such a triad of eclipses in the last 2,600 years of precise astronomical calculations.

    It is useless to argue with astronomy. Therefore, one may say unambiguously that there were no such eclipses in ancient Greece. Consequently, there wasn't even the Peloponnesian War itself.  True, the eclipses also don't occur for the years of the medieval war. But as has been discovered by the adherents of the new chronology, a displacement of temporal segments happened steadily in the traditional historiography, which is called chronological shifts, when several real events are mixed up onto one whole and later carried into the distant past.

      The mathematical methods used in the analysis of traditional history have shown that these shifts and carry-overs are not chaotic. The have approximately the same magnitude and are found in hundreds of cases. And what is more in accordance with the "historic cycles" and Masonic numerology with its magical numbers.  The graphical representation of the Scaliger chronology, created by contemporary scholars, even looks on the surface like symbols of masonry - the compass (Greek history) and the set square (Roman history.) This, as Dmitri Kalyuzhny and Aleksandr Zhabinsky write, is the "composite center" of Scaliger history.    ("The Other History of Wars")

         Moving further along the time scale, we come to Alexander of Macedonia. In the traditional history it is recounted that a new force gradually ripened in the north of Greece - the Macedonian Empire.   With King Phillip II (359 - 336 B.C.) it achieved power that had been unknown earlier.

     Athens headed a battle with Phillip. But, despite desperate resistance, they suffered defeat.

    As early as with Alexander's father war starts with the Persians, however, the murder of Phillip in 336  B.C. postponed the realization of the Eastern Crusade for some time.  Having come to the throne, Alexander cruelly dealt with the father's killers and possible pretenders to the throne.

    In the spring of 334 B.C., the Macedonian army and allied Greek detachments ferry to Asia Minor. Alexander's army was considerably inferior numerically to the Persian, but won in a severe battle, and the way to Asia Minor was opened to Alexander.  

   Having finished its conquest, Alexander entered Northern Syria.  Here he had once again to meet with Persian forces - this time King Darius III himself stood at their head.  The Macedonians succeeded in winning the battle that took place the fall of 333 B.C. near Issa.

    Later, Alexander captures the Phoenician Coast, where Tyre rendered the most stubborn resistance, but in 332 the city was taken by storm.  The capture of Gaza opened the way to Egypt, the satrap of which, not having sufficient forces for resistance, surrendered.    

      During the stay in Egypt, Alexander founded a city in the Nile delta, giving it his own name.  He completed a pilgrimage to the oracle of Ammon in the desert, priests of whom declared Alexander as the son of Ammon, having recognized, consequently, his divine parentage.  Thus his power over Egypt received a divine basis.  

     In the spring of 331 B.C., Alexander moved to the north.  Crossing the Euphrates and the Tigris, he approached the small town of Gaugamela, and here on 1 October 331 B.C. occurred the decisive battle.  Although the Persian army was stronger than at Issa, the Macedonians did not succeed this time in routing it.

   Now Alexander already had been dreaming about worldwide rule. He conquered vast areas along the Indus river, but nevertheless, he did not succeed in completing the Indian campaign.  The army, exhausted by the campaign, refused to go further.  Alexander turned back with the remnants of his army to Babylon.  

    The king's policy at that time was directed at the unification of his huge state.  A broad campaign for the founding of new cities in the conquered territories is put into practice (Alexander viewed them as the strong points of his power.)  He also was preparing for new campaigns.  However, at the high point of these preparations, Alexander dies in 323 B.C. from a fever at the age of 33.

    A fine subject, worthy of the pen of a great writer. A whole epic, compressed by us to the dimensions of one page. But, alas, it is not original. The empire of Alexander of Macedonia has too many of the same features as the Osman (Ottoman) Empire, which was founded in the 15th Century by Mahomet II. He conquered countries just as it is described in the legends about the Macedonian.    In a comparison of the maps of the Osman Empire and the Macedonian empire, it is clearly visible that the European and Mediterranean borders of both conquests practically coincide.

      There are overly curious pages in the medieval writings and manuscripts connected with the Macedonian and Mahomet II.  In some Turkish documents of that time, Mahomet II is glorified as Alexander!  In others - of European origin - Alexander the Macedonian pays compliments. . .  to France.  Monks are present with crosses and thuribles during the funerals of the great conqueror. And the Macedonian is buried not anywhere, but in one of the Egyptian pyramids. From the point of view of the traditional historians, all of this is absolute nonsense.

     One may add that, in the opinion of the medieval authors, "Orpheus is the contemporary of Aeneas, Sardanapal - the King of Greece, and Julian the Apostate - a Papal chaplain. That is, a multitude of epochs, countries and names is supposedly fully mingled. It is not difficult to understand the contemporary historians when they write that in the Middle Ages "the notion of chronological consistency almost was lost. . . Everything in this world takes on a fantastic coloring. The most coarse anachronisms and the strangest fabrications get along peacefully. The basis for such a conclusion is the same: the medieval evidence does not correspond to the place of Scaliger and Petavius. Well, and since they do not correspond, then, consequently, in the Middle Ages everyone was going crazy together, and hardly had started to write history. And the medieval author Fredegarius Scholasticus even pointed to King Priam (from the legendary Troy! ) as a personage of a previous generation. Scholasticus already had fully lost his bearing in the centuries and the adherents of the traditional chronology are at a loss how to react.

      As we see, the documents of that time are full of names which supposedly belonged to distant ancestors. This seems absurd and laughable, because today the notion reigns that in the Middle Ages names were distributed that weren't in "antiquity." A mistaken notion. Books, messages, and letters of that time are evidence of it. For example, Georgius Phrantzae in "History" (1258 - 1476 A.D.) names his contemporaries: Antioch, Demetrios, Dionysius, Minos, Cleope and so forth. Nil Sinayskiy in that very same period writes letters to the monks Demosthenes, Apollosius, Aristocles, Aristarchus and the like. An obvious "antiquity"!

  But it shows only that not only various events, but also the names of their heroes were replicated and referred to in the distant past, according to the historic cycles. (Anatoliy Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy "Which Century Is It Now?")

       In history textbooks it is emphasized that the time of Alexander of Macedonia was noted by many important achievements in Greek literature, science, philosophy and art, and it is connected with the creation of such prominent thinkers of antiquity as, for example, Plato. And generally, then a significant phenomenon sprang up in the history of ancient Greece which was called the Hellenic period. It is acceptable to examine it as the expansion of Greek culture in the countries conquered by the Macedonian.

    The 15th century A.D. is in no way distinguished from antiquity in this regard. The fall of Byzantium and Greece and the formation of the Osman empire caused medieval Hellenism which is well known in history and which spread to all Europe. Ferdinando Gregorovius writes: "From the moment of the fall of Hellas, the story of the Greeks is split:  one into their enslaved motherland, the other into exile. . . . they came to be resettled in strange countries in masses. The West accepted them hospitably. . . Their religious aristocracy found refuge in the capitals and in the educational institutions of Italy, bringing Greek literature here anew."

      Everything is correct except the word "anew." There was nothing "anew," everything was for the first time. And that which is ascribed to antiquity is a duplicate of medieval events and personalities. Even Plato is a duplicate.

    Supposedly it is known of traditional history that "Plato was the greatest representative of the idealistic school in ancient Greek philosophy.  He created the Academy - a school of philosophy in which his students were united.  The notion of ideas became the basis of Plato's instruction - of the eternal and unchanging image patterns of things, the weak reflections of which are the subjects of the real world."  (Encyclopedia)

     It is thought that his instruction died in order to be reborn several hundred years later reappears in the famous Plotinus (205 - 270 A.D.)  His name, it is clear, is absolutely accidental, and practically identical to Plato's name. Then Platonicism again for some reason dies, in order to be reborn in the 15th century in the teaching  . . of Pleton! He also is almost Plato and also a famous philosopher, writer and public figure.

      For fullness of the picture, let us say that Plato's ideas appear out of nowhere for the first time from in the 15th century, at the high point of Pleton's activity, and that Pleton organizes in Italy, in Florence, the Pleton Academy - an exact analogue of the Platonist Academy.

 And the fact is of interest that Pleton writes "Utopia," as did Plato, and also "A Treatise on Laws," following in everything his own "ancient" predecessor, the author of the treatise "Laws." At the same time, the Pleton of the 15th century as too the ancient Plato, promotes the idea of an ideal state.

    The traditional historians know all this well. All the examples cited by us have been taken from their works.  It would seem the conclusions suggest themselves: the ancient Plato is the duplicate of the medieval Pleton! But no, it is impossible to violate Scaliger's chronology, and therefore, Plotinus and Pleton are declared neoplatonists, that is, followers of Plato.

   The development of art in the 4th century A.D. reflects the new phenomena of Greek society, it is said in the solid works devoted to antiquity.  Greek sculpture knows many prominent masters (Scopas, Leochares, Bryaxis, Praxiteles, Lysippus.)  Their works supposedly have been found with various excavations, often just "by accident." Travelers bring them to museums and merchants sell them, who, heaven knows by which routes, have obtained the "antique" from some kind of unknown secondhand dealer.

    But here is the trouble: from time to time it turns out that one or the other work is counterfeit. From century to century skilled craftsmen are discovered who work "like the old days" in order to earn their daily living. A great deal of books have been written about the counterfeit industry, no less fascinating than the detective stories of famous writers. At that, they tell only about those cases when falsifications have been discovered. And how many have not been discovered! . . Here are only several subjects.    

     We already have talked about the origin of a series of "ancient" sculptures. Even the great Michelangelo sinned with counterfeits in his youth. He created a figurine of Cupid and at the suggestion of a friend sold it as an antique original. The forgery presently was uncovered, but the sculptor was already well known:  they thought that he was able to "ascend to the mastery of the ancient sculptors."

    The famous Benvenuto Cellini told in his own autobiography how he created vases which were declared as antique:  "By this little job I obtained much." There were sculptors who even specialized in this source of counterfeits. One of them was so successful that he merited the nickname Antico.  

     Israel Rouchomovsky was famous in the 19th century, the author of a whole series of "antiques." The Louvre bought the "tiara of Saitapharnes" from him for 200,000 francs as an original of 3rd century B.C. Grecian art. Only later did it become clear that the figures on the tiara were copied from pictures out of an atlas of cultural history published in 1882. They were made so skillfully that they didn't believe Rouchomovsky when he announced his authorship of the tiara. Then he produced a series of "antiques" of his own productions and the museum gave in.

      They called Alceo Dessena the king of antique forgeries. He had a special workshop which flooded the worldwide market with counterfeit antiquities: "Athenian" statues, sculptures "a la Gothic," and statuettes "three thousand years old." Afterward Dossena exposed himself. The fact is that he, as did Rouchomovsky, had been using the services of a firm for marketing in "antiquities" and became dissatisfied that they paid him so little. And he decided to take revenge.  But they didn't believe him!  Then, in 1927, he shot a film about how he made an "antique" statue of a goddess. Only here did he convince everyone.

     In 1937, a certain Honon, while plowing a field not far from Brizet, found a marble statue of Venus. Specialists unanimously proclaimed it a work of the first century B.C. Honon received 250,000 francs for a "creation of Praxiteles or Phidias." But in 1938, the sculptor Francesco Cremonese, declared that he had hidden a statue of his own execution in the field. And he proved this. And he had completed the forgery in order to show to everyone of what he was capable as a sculptor.

    Though, as regards "ancient" sculptures and other works of "antiquity," one can manage even without these examples. It is enough just to glance into the textbooks and study aids for specialists who talk about the properties of natural stones.

     Here is what is said about marble: "A stone, like metals, subject to corrosion.  The stone's corrosion appears in the form of peeling, splitting, swelling and a loosening of the rock, the appearance of cracks, splotchiness, cavities and  scabbings, discoloration or  coloration of the stone's surface in dark tones, the appearance of brown and greenish spots of organic origin.

Among damages of the surface layer one also can pick out a sugary and scaly disintegration of the stone.  The sugary disintegration of marble is caused by the uneven disintegration of the surface layer.  At the same time, the rough surface of the stone resembles the texture of sugar.   

   . . . It is necessary to note that the Italian, Greek, and Turkish classifications of the stone do not use the term "marbleized limestone."  An overwhelming quantity of limestone is called marble.

    The durability of limestone is 120 years. The durability of real marble is up to 300 years! It is worth scrutinizing marble sculptures which are displayed in museums as authentic works of two millennia ago and right away it will become clear when they were made.

    And, finally, about archaeological monuments. For the start, let's say that the first catalogue of inscriptions and local names of monuments in Athens was established just in the middle of the 15th century. But the fateful lot of a majority of originals befell it:  the catalog was lost! If one doesn't know that in particular the traces of the subsequent forgeries were wiped out, then one may think that the evil fate from the Greek myths had risen in earnest in the Middle Ages. Contemporary specialists are acquainted only with the mention of the catalog in the works of later authors.

     Ferdinand Gregorovius notes, "over the course of time, the original name of the majority of ancient Athenian monuments, from which in many cases only individual ruins remained, was forgotten."  One can understand the historian's assertion. According to his ideas, the monuments had to be named as it said in the "ancient" writings. And living people were calling them otherwise! That means, they had forgotten the original names. Ferdinand Gregorovius does not offer other variants. That they named the monument themselves is, in the opinion of the traditional historians, absurd. They considered the remnants of the Olympion in those days as a basilica, "since no one knew that it is the ruins of the once world renowned temple of Olympus." Ciriacus (the compiler of the first catalog) calls these tremendous ruins. . . Adrian's palace, as the Athenians themselves called it. . .

      In 1678, Babin didn't know where the temple of Zeus was in Athens. . . the Academy, Lyceum, Stoa and gardens of Epicurus had disappeared without a trace. In the times of Ciriacus, they called some kind of a group of basilicas the Academy, the location of which it is impossible to determine. . . They located the Lyceum or Aristotle's didascalion in the ruins of the theatre of Dionysus. . . Ciriacus copied the Greek inscription here, not mentioning the great philosopher. . . The ruins near Callirhoe turned out to be the remnants of Aristophanes' stage.

     The traditional historiography, thus, supposes that not only the authors of the medieval writings, but also simply the residents of Athens were great muddle-headed persons and dreamers. The whole world knew the Olympic temple, but they didn't even guess that it was located in their home town. And they didn't have the slightest idea where the Academy and the gardens of Epicurean were located. Moreover, they considered the great comedian Aristophanes almost as their own contemporary. As too many other figures of "antiquity."

    There were not dreamers. They were guided by personal recollection and real knowledge, and what the creators of "antiquity," who were in no way satisfied with the Ciriacus catalog, write later about Athens.

      As sad as it is to part with the usual ideas mastered while still in school about Ancient Greece, one need recognize that it is only a reflection of medieval Greece. Not always precise, often even warped, but only a reflection.




discuss it  on our forum


Copyright 2003-2011 Vlad Melamed