Customer Reviews

History: Fiction or Science? Chronology 2

5 star:		(8)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(1)

 

 

After having read the first volume of this expected series of 7 volumes I was triggered by the thesis of these authors that ancient Greek and Roman history did in fact take place in the Middle Ages. So I started studying medieval history of the Middle East - also known as Islamic history - to find out if the opponents of the ancient Greeks and Romans - the Acheamenid Persians, Sassanids, Scythians, Egyptians, etc. - also have their duplicates in medieval history. My search was disappointing: none of the many medieval Islamic dynasties seemed to correspond to the ancient middle eastern rulers.

However, I did find a close correspondence between Herodotus' Persian kings and medieval events:

- the defeat and capture of an Anatolian king - the Lydian Croesus - by the Persian conqueror Cyrus is identical to the defeat and capture of another Anatolian king - sultan Bayezid - by the Asian/Mongol conqueror Tamerlane;
- the Persian conquest of Egypt by the cruel tyrant Cambyses reds almost exactly as the Ottoman conquest of Egypt by Selim the Grim (note the nickname!);
- Darius the Lawgiver of the Persian Empire looks very much alike to Sulayman the Magnificent, the Lawgiver in Islamic history;
- Xerxes, whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by the Greeks at the naval battle of Salamis, looks like Selim II (the Sot) whose main claim to fame is to be defeated by a Spanish-Italian alliance at the naval battle of Lepanto.

I should have expected Fomenko et al. to arrive at similar conclusions, however, they claim that the Persian kings are the alter egos of the Angevin kings of Sicily whose biographies do not contain the exploits of the Persian kings.

The similiarities I indicate lead to the conclusion that Herodotus must have written his Histories at the close of the 16th century. But this is extremely late, given that Herodotus is "the Father of History", so therefore all other "ancient" histories must have been fabricated even later. Yet, the founders of modern chronology - Scaliger and Petavius - laid their foundations also at the close of the 16th century and had the full corpus of ancient histories already at their disposal.

It seems to me that Fomenko has to address these inconsistencies, maybe in the forthcoming 5 volumes?

Another critique of their book is that the correspondencies between different rulers are often based on a superficial comparison of the biographies; upon a more thorough comparison many details appear that do not correspond at all.

Finally, the authors rely heavily on the works of Gregorovius (1821-1891!!) - his medieval histories of Rome and Athens - as the source of medieval history; these works are - at least in the West - hoplessly outdated and have been superceded by more up-to-date works (for instance, Julius Norwich's trilogy on Byzantine history is not even cited).

We can so far divide the New Chronology into the following three parts:

a) The verifiable theory that proves consensual chronology wrong with the aid of astronomy, statistics and mathematics;

b) The new chronology hypothesis based on a new understanding of known historical facts and the most likely logical explanation of the most obvious inconsistencies inherent in the official version of history;

c) The history conjectures, that is experimental historical reconstructions based on assumptions that the authors believe to make sense in the light of their research and linguistic parallels - void of ironclad factual support to date.

Fomenko's theory complies with the most rigid scientific standards as a whole:

It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know.

- It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion.

- The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically.

Fomenko goes by the following axioms:

- Chronology is the basis of history;

- Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;

- The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history;

- The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;

- The chronological distance between a given manuscript and the events described therein is proportional to the amount of distortions it contains;

- There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.

Why the mainstream historians do not shower mathematician Academician Dr.Prof Fomenko with thanks and laurels?

The Russians:

Because Fomenko asserts that there was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by three centuries of slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that Russian history as we know it today is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs, whose ascension to the throne was the result of coup d'état, charged with the mission of making their reign look legitimate. Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate rulers and the ambitious upstarts. The winner took it all! Over some 30 years of controversy, Russian historians have made a most remarkable transition - they were initially accusing the young mathematician Fomenko of anticommunist dissident activity and attempts to deface the historical legacy of Soviet Russia; nowadays the middle-aged mathematician is accused of adhering to "pro-communist Russian nationalism" and defacing the proud historical legacy of Great Russia.

The Westerners:

Because Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, successfully removing a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one the Ancient Rome (the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the XIV century A. D.), the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece, and the Ancient Egypt (the pyramids of Giza become dated to the XI-XV century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less). The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the XII-XV century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone. He was the first one to decipher and date all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case. English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the present book portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.

The Chinese:

Because Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such thing. Full point. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the XVII-XVIII century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them to shut up.

The Arabs:

Too bad. Islam with all its key figures is datable to XV-XVI century A. D. Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the XVI-XVII century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.

The Divinity:

Despite of reiterated statement that his theory is all about chronology and not Religion, Fomenko stirs up a whole condominium of wasp nests. His collection of anathemas, fatwa, and other condemnations from all parties concerned is already considerable. Little wonder, considering that the history of religions à la Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the XI century and JC), Bacchic Christianity (XI-XII century, before and after JC), JC Christianity (XII-XVI century) and its subsequent mutations into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on.

According to Fomenko we know strictly NOTHING about the events that predate the X century A. D.

St Augustin was prescient when he spoke unto us: "be wary of mathematicians, particularly when they speak the truth."

We all know the Biblical tale of Moses upon the fiery mountain. We also know the one about the cities of the plain destroyed in a fiery hailstorm.

The believers school of thought accepts everything the Bible says without questioning, whereas the vehement atheists school of thought renounces everything the Book has to say as nonsense, absurdity and malignant spells and stamps it as "A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost."

The rational person tries to think of what the ancient author(s) could really be referring to. Volcanoes? But there aren't any active volcanoes anywhere in the Middle East - nor Northern Africa.

However, there is an exception Vesuvius in Italy. It is at a considerable distance from Palestine, granted. There is one scientist who is brave enough to make the heretical presumption that the real events that became reflected in the Bible really took place elsewhere and some other time. Are the steps of the stoning crowd heard already?

If not, it must certainly be stampeding the paper trail of Anatoly Fomenko, one of the world's greatest living mathematicians and the author of the presumptions cited above. The second of seven volumes in his monumental tractate entitled "History: Fiction or Science?" has just come out in English, and it's the most sensational thing since genetic engineering!

For the first time ever exact science extracts from the Bible eventual dates and places where events of the Kingdoms of Judah and Israel have taken place. This volume delivers more in couple of chapters than biblical archeology in the past 200 years.

This is the second volume in a projected 7-volume series. It's not quite as much fun as the first volume, where Dr. Fomenko outlined his radical historical theories. This is something of an appendix to volume 1, showing how the timelines of the "First" through "Third" Roman empires, ancient Egypt, ancient Greece, and the Bible are all reflections of events which took place in socalled "Medieval" times. The reason pre-1600 history tends to move in cycles of about 350 years (punctuated by Dark Ages) is, we are told, because there only is about 350 years of pre-1600 history in the first place.

Since I went through the Columbia University's "Contemporary Civilization" program as an undergraduate, I was personally amused to see that two Classical Greek writers who were conventionally viewed as being ancient and historically inaccurate (though still great)-- i.e., Homer and Herodotus--- are viewed here as being relatively recent and accurate (as well as great.)

Fomenko's timeline becomes even more radical in this book: for example, Fomenko now tells us that Jesus probably lived in the 1100s, not the 1000s. And he was Russian.

We have a few volumes left before Fomenko gets around to British and American history.

Here is a serie of books which turns "the whole world" upside down. I learned a lot of it and I hope that a new book from A.T. Fomenko will follow very quick. A absolute must for everybody who is interested in history or even a little bit from it.

I was somewhat astonished to see a preface concerned with compatibility of astronomy and history .

Apparently, mediaeval and "ancient" chronicles refer to several spectacular solar eclipses accompaning the important events. The heavens validated thus the claim of the party that won the day and time-stampted it. Things celestial were in high demand in 16-17th cy, therefore the scolars "confirmed" ancient events with a remarkable astronomical phenomena; their learned astrology friends furnished an "exact" dating for vanity eclipse. This had been the prevailing agenda in the correspondence between the founding father of chronology Joseph Scaliger, a Jesuit, and Johannes Kepler, a fellow Jesuit and the founding father of astronomy.

All this "science" had been approximate, and calculated dates scholastic and arbitrary, the reason being that both the model and data were way too crude. The Apollo missions would have missed the Moon if their trajectory calculation had been based on the Earth-Moon model of the XVI-XVII century.

The astronomers knew about lunar tidal friction already in XVIII century, but could not calculate it. In the XVIII-XIX century they tried to use it for calculating "historical" data, coming up with a horrendous mess as a result. Actually, to make valid reverse calculations of solar eclipses giving precise time, place, phase and duration one needs an atomic clock, a laser, a satellite, a computer and a special software suite. Moreover, such calculations can only be reliable if the Earth-Moon system is stable during the period of research. Fomenko presumes it stable until proven contrary.

Once properly recalculated with the aid of modern computers and software, all the "ancient" eclipses turn out to be mediaeval - or fake.

In this volume Fomenko gives his final analysis of the eclipse tried described by Thucydides, dating them to 1039,1046 and 1057 AD, discovers the layered structure of this extremely rare authentic mediaeval manuscript, and attributes the events described therein to 1374-1387 AD. According to Fomenko, the "ancient" Greek Thucydides describes the Peloponnesian War as the conflict between the mediaeval Navarrans (Spartans) and Catalans (Athenians) in Greece!

Fomenko does his best to disentangle the embroidered knots of history, putting his razor-sharp logic to good use. He delivers just as he promises in Volume 1: the Middle Ages are the same epoch as the "Antiquity", the Second and the Third Roman Empire become doubles, and the Roman Emperors duplicate the Biblical rulers of Israel and Judah to boot. Fomenko asserts that the famous reform of the Occidental Church in alleged XI century by "Pope Gregory Hildebrand" is the reflection of the XII century reforms of the Byzantine emperor Andronicus, who, in turn, identifies as Jesus Christ as a historical character as opposed to a mythical figure.

Ah yes, the great "ancient" Homer actually lived in XIV century A.D.; and counted the Trojan War; This World War Zero happened in fact in the XIIIth century A.D., the casus belli of WW0 was the first round of division of the proto-Christianity and not the feminine vanity. Period. Let's call it an alternative History for the time being!

If you agree with Fomenko that Roman chronology is basically the foundation of the entire edifice of global chronology; you would also certainly agree that despite its numerous gaps and inconsistencies, Roman history is the best-documented field of ancient history, and thus a reference scale. But how well is the actual date of the Eternal City's foundation known?

Firstly, Rome is supposed to have been founded by the Trojans who had to flee after the fall of Troy. Some claim Rome to have been founded by Aeneas and Ulysses shortly after Troy had fallen; others are of the opinion that there was an entire dynasty that ruled for 500 years between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome.

Well, that's just an innocent 500 years long misunderstanding compared with what heretic Fomenko says, asserts, proves in his second volume: Second Roman Empire, Third Roman Empire, Biblical Kingdom of Israel, Biblical Kingdom of Judah, Holy Roman Empire are stories about basically same events, written from different points of view at different times. The underlying events have actually taken place during xii-xv cy. These histories have been written and perfected by multitude of highly talented humanist and clerical writers of xiii-xvi cy disguised as "ancients" with glorious names like Homer, Pluto, Thucydides etc..Chronology 2.0 beta..

Historians are kindly invited to report the bugs.

This is the Second Book in Fomenko's seven book set. I'm not sure if the other books will ever get published in English. Can't say I'm sorry if they don't. This book is more interesting than book 1 which was mostly filled with charts. That doesn't make it better. This one goes into Fomenko's crazy ideas regarding history and why he thinks they make sense.

A brief explanation for anyone not familiar with this book. Anatoly Fomenko is a Doctor of Mathematics at Moscow State University. Despite a lack of support from his colleagues (who consider his ideas on history nuts) he published a series of seven books in which he rewrote the history of the world based on his ideas of Statistics. As explained on the back cover of the first book, "Jesus Christ was born in 1053 A.D. and crucified in 1086 A.D. The Old Testament refers to mediaeval events. Apocalypse was written after 1486 A.D." The Roman Empire and all of Classical civilization was invented by Jesuit monks who wrote in a remarkably short time all of Western literature and invented an entire civilization which people then immediately forgot never existed. All Classical buildings are simply medieval ones that have been misdated.

And now the history of the world as outlined in this book: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor with no real successes who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know. It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything. Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't. It was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. People back then had very short memories often forgetting why they did something before they even did it. Very sad. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.

It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what nationality was Fomenko again?). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok. Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them that they used to rule the world). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and have existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Georgians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a czar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the czar's sister or something. The czar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. I'm not sure where Latin came from but the Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.

As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.

You don't even have to wait for the book to begin for the errors to creep in. The title alone presents a false dichotomy. Fiction or Science? As if those are the only two options. And I have no doubt that Fomenko does indeed see it that way given his haughty dismissal of anything even loosely connected to the Arts. History is too close to the Arts and must be purged of anything that isn't a string of exact, quantifiable numbers. All similar number strings must be combined into the same string, and any "facts" or "historical personages" attached to those numbers must be purged as well. Nice, clean math. But it's more disturbing than just that. These books (there are seven at last counting) are a vast horde of Russian nationalic propaganda. Apart from ridiculing any non-Scientists (AKA Untrustworthy Liars) the main goal of these books is to establish that Russia ruled all the world from North America through Europe into China and the Middle East, and they did so for most of recorded history. So his two assumptions about the world are:
1. All Non-Scientists are either liars or idiots.
2. Everything in the world originated in Russia.

One of these two assumptions is underlying every single one of his conclusions. He treats his random and unsupported speculations with just as much respect as ones that have been established through years of research backed by hard evidence. Linguistically too he is a dunce since he views all languages as being mere corruptions of the original Russian. Linguistics after all, is not a science. Neither is Art, Archaeology, Sociology, Geneology, or Anthropology. Thus they are worthless as sources of information and aren't even worth mentioning unless to state (not argue or prove) that they are wrong.

.
To cut history down to size he finds parallels and then compacts them into reflections of the same event. A few examples:
Both Augustus and Constantine relied on the military to get them into power (page 12). Good point Dr. Fomenko. Good point.

"Second Empire. 'Right after the death of Augustus, who had left no direct heir... the issue of succession arose immediately' ([767], Volume 2, page 412). A struggle for power begins. In face of the uncertainty concerning the identity of his successor, Tiberius, having acceded to the throne, had to fight other pretenders, Germanicus in particular, 'on equal terms'.
Third Empire. Constantine I leaves no direct heir, but 'dividing the empire between his three sons and two nephews' ([327], page 438). Naturally, after the death of Constantine I, a furious power struggle had flared up. Constantine I had brought major confusion afoot, since he had specified no single successor to the throne. Constantius II, having captured 'Constantinople, exterminated the families of the two stepbrothers of Constantine' ([327], page 438)." (page 15)
See how annoying these references are? I'll skip them from now on. Minor problems: Augustus specified his heir. It was Tiberius. There was no dispute from any other potential candidates since they were all dead. Germanicus was Tiberius' adopted son. The difference between that and three sons fighting for the throne is self-evident, especially since they just divided it anyway.

"Belisarius is a military leader. Justinian is an emperor. The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel.
Caesar is a military leader. Pompey is a number one public figure. Friends initially, foes eventually.
Achilles is a military leader. Agamemnon is the 'principal royalty'. Friends at first, enemies afterwards.
Valerius is a military leader, while Tarquin the Proud is the 'main king'. Hostile in the beginning; mortal enemies afterwards." (page 195)
Now let me try one: General McChrystal is a military leader. President Obama is a 'president.' The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel. Hey, that's kinda fun! Good thing there can't possibly be more than one person that vague and unconvincing comparison could describe.

And my personal favorite: "Second Empire. A while ago Tiberius was adopted by Octavian Augustus ([767], Volume 2, page 412). Tiberius is known to have died being 'strangled with blankets.' In a sense, this death may be considered unexpected.
Third Empire. Constantius II is the son of Constantine I. Constantius II, as historians tell us, 'died unexpectedly.'" (page 15)
Death by blankets is 'unexpected' now? What gives? Seriously, how a dying 78 year old man being hurried to his death can be compared with a 44 year old man dying of an illness in the prime of life is beyond me.

So now you see the problems with his comparisons. They're either hopelessly vague or they take one case and force it to fit another. So basically what Fomenko has shown is that human life is repetitive. Even that he can't do without messing with the evidence. And speaking of the evidence, there is something seriously wrong with his way of footnoting. In the bibliography at the back he assigns every book a number and then uses that number in the text. I don't know if that's standard for Russian Mathematical works but it certainly isn't for English historical ones. Or French ones. Or German ones.. Or Italian ones... And there's a good reason no one uses it, it's confusing. You have to go all the way to the back of the book and scroll through hundreds of books to find the one you want, only to find that it's in Russian anyway and hasn't been updated since before the Russian Revolution. There are actually a large number like that. 767 is from 1938 which makes it relatively new. I guess he didn't want to use any books he hadn't already read in childhood. This sourcing method is really frustrating when he gives non-standard citations for standard sources. For example: Plutarch. Fomenko states that Plutarch calls Sulla an Emperor. Since such an office didn't exist in the Republic I decided to look up what word he was mistaking for 'Emperor.' But the citation is this: ([660], Vol. 2, pages 137-138). If you look that up in the Bibliography you find: Plutarch, Comparative Biographies, Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961. Since I don't read Russian I have no way of finding that page. This is why proper historians use chapters and verse (like the Bible) to identify their sources. These don't vary with the translations. And while it's hard to judge from a title, that book doesn't sound like it's in Greek. Which means that he's basing his statement about a technical term on a book that translated that technical term for him. The point is that I can't check up on it since he does such a bad job with his sources.

A few examples of Fomenko's bias and standards of evidence. Brutus is associated with a whole slew of people because Fomenko decides his name comes from 'brat' which means brother. The problem is that 'brat' is a RUSSIAN word meaning brother. He passes by that without question but he's basically assuming that Russian is the originator of all languages. That would be like me claiming Caesar was a sailor since his name is similar to the word 'sea.' It is decidedly typical of Fomenko's extreme nationalistic agenda to assume that everything revolves around the Russians. A minor example of his standards, but an amusing one for me, is his statement that Caesar was called Emperor on coins decades before that office even existed. This is particularly amusing for me since Caesar BECAME the word for emperor as did Augustus after his successor. The Romans never really developed a word for Emperor outside of using those two names. It'd be like claiming that Martin Luther King can't have been from the '60s since America wasn't a monarchy at that time. This is the same question I asked above from his references to Plutarch. The word he's probably referring to though is Imperator which means general, not Emperor. Eventually the Emperors would associate that word so strongly with their power that it would become impossible to untangle it but that was centuries in the future. Another possibility is that it refers to the title of princeps which means the first man of the state. While Augustus made that title a permanent feature of Imperial titulature it originally meant exactly what it said. The leader of the senate had been called the princeps senatus for ages. For Plutarch the options are autocrator (Greek for Imperator), Sebastocrator (Augustus), Kaisar (Caesar), or basileos (king). Since he doesn't say which word it is all that can be done is guess. Fomenko's Latin is apparently as bad as his translator's English.

What this book consists of is basically a detailed explanation of the charts from the last book along with some new ones. These explanations actually make less sense than the bare charts themselves and show what a truly horrid grasp Fomenko has of the history he's trying to demolish. Starting at the beginning (p. 2) with the Romans his division of their history (which he treats as standard) makes no sense. I wonder if Russian historians divide it this way but I can't see any practical benefit so I'll dismiss it as more of his crazy ramblings. He considers there to have been three Roman Empires, one from 743-509 BC, the second from 83 BC-217 AD, and the third one from 270-526 AD. The first one makes some sense although why he divides them into separate empires instead of just periods of the same empire is beyond me. The first 'Empire' is what historians would call the regal period from Romulus to Tarquinius Superbus. This was back when Rome was ruled by kings in the mists of prehistory and myth. The second empire makes no sense. First off he starts in the late Republic and ends in the middle of the Empire without even seeming to notice the change. Secondly, the event he chooses to start off with (Sulla's rule of Rome) is not really the event that marked a new era so much as an attempt to hold onto the old one. Similarly Caracalla's death at the end of it doesn't really signify any changes although it is symptomatic of the difficulties that Rome was having. It should start with Caesar or Augustus and end at Commodus or Alexander Severus. The third empire makes even less sense. Starting with Aurelian makes a bit of sense I suppose since he began Rome's recovery, but again it was Diocletian who really set up the new model empire and not Aurelian. Ending it with Theodoric makes even less sense since he wasn't an Emperor of Rome but a successor king to the Italian peninsula. Apart from the first one these divisions are entirely arbitrary and pointless.

So what's the first part of his long-winded justification say? Sulla equals Aurelian. Oh that's why he did it. Bravo good sir. Well done. Find two people renowned for their cruelty and force them to merge into one. That's exactly the kind of wooly thinking I've come to expect from these books. As usual Fomenko has forced a parallel without mentioning that he's changing things around to do so. Ignoring the fact that Aurelian's reputation for cruelty comes from the Historia Augusta, which is just as pseudo-historical as this work, the simple fact of the matter is that the two have basically nothing else in common. Sulla's reforms vanished within a decade of his (natural) death while Aurelian's paved the way for his more successful successor Diocletian. Following this we again see Fomenko's number fudging. The most obvious example in this chart consists of his sticking "Strife" into his charts every time he feels the need to make things match. Either that or he thinks there were a large number of emperors with the name 'Strife.' Further examples include his use of Sertorius as a counterpoint to Probus. Probus was indeed a 3rd Century emperor but Sertorius was a Roman rebel, albeit a famous and not wholly despised one. Given the number of Roman armies sent against him it seems hard to believe that he was ruling Rome from all the way over in Spain. Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus is also radically altered. Again Fomenko has distorted the facts to make it fit by removing participants. Diocletian had three colleagues not merely one. What's more Constantius wasn't his main colleague but merely his junior partner. Maximian was Diocletian's partner in government and he ruled not from 293-305 but from 286. But using him would throw Fomenko's calculation off, especially given how much importance he gives to Constantius. He calls Constantius Caesar's double (p. 11) even though he did nothing to merit such a comparison. When Diocletian resigns he lists one of his periods of strife and says that Constantius conquers the Tetrarchy as Caesar conquers the Triumvirate. Both are wrong but to focus on Constantius all that he does to conquer the tetrarchy is die. Within a year of Diocletian's resignation he's dead so how he's able to posthumously conquer the tetrarchy is beyond me. Inasmuch as the tetrarchy was destroyed not conquered (which may be a translation issue) it was done by Constantius' son Constantine who spent not four years but twenty changing the tetrarchy into a monarchy. As for Caesar he didn't conquer or even destroy the triumvirate. It was never a formal system. When Crassus died in 53 and Pompey refused to grant Caesar a consulship in 50 the alliance ended. If anyone 'conquered' it it was Pompey who maintained his authority by denying Caesar protection from his enemies. So while I suppose Constantine could be compared to Caesar his father can't which ruins Fomenko's 'theory' by throwing the dates off. An amusing association is between Caligula and Julian. Caligula was a well-known sadistic tyrant (although Fomenko says little is known of him) while Julian was an (over)educated man who tried to bring paganism back. But of course they're the same person because they both wore the military sandals (caligae) which gave Caligula his name. The fact that all Roman Emperors wore such sandals while on campaign is skimmed over. Just so you can see what one of his charts looks like I'm copying this one out in full. There's a visual that goes with it but there's only so much I can do with text. It's somewhat better translated than the one from the last book so I do at least know who the people he's naming are, which just makes it easier to spot how far off he is.

__________________________________________________________
His Roman Chart (With Added Comments and Corrected Dates):
Sulla, ruled four years (82-78 BC)
Aurelian, ruled 5 years (270-275 AD)
-Sulla became dictator in 82 and resigned in 81 (1 year)
-Correct (5 years)

Strife, less than one year (78-77 BC)
Strife, less than one year (275-276 AD)
-No Strife at all (0 years)
-Tacitus was emperor, though not for long (I'll give him his 1 year)

Sertorius, 6 years (78-72 BC)
Probus, 6 years (276-282 AD)
-Famous Roman rebel in Spain. Did NOT rule Rome. Active from 83-72 (Active 11 years. Ruled Rome 0 years)
-Correct (6 years)

Strife, 2 years (72-71 BC)
Strife, 2 years (282-284 AD)
-Spartacus Rebellion 73-71 (3 years)
-Carus ruled. No strife (Actually 0 years)

Pompey the Great, 21 years (70-49 BC)
Diocletian the Divine(?), 21 years (284-305 AD)
-Pompey was never unopposed. Spent most of his time at war (Influential for 21 years)
-Diocletian had colleagues. Only sole ruler for 2 years (Co-ruled for 21 years)

Joint rule of Pompey and Caesar (first triumvirate), 11 years (60-49 BC)
Joint rule of Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus (first tetrarchy), 12 years (293-305 AD)
-Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had loose alliance from 60 on. The reason that it's called a triumvirate is that there were three of them. trio=three viri=men. It was never an official term. Crassus died in 53 (7 years)
-Diocletian ruled with Maximian from 286, Constantius and Galerius from 293. All ruled at same time. There was also never a second tetrarchy (Ruled with Maximian 19 years)

Strife, 4 years (49-45 BC)
Strife, 4 years (305-309 AD)
-Civil War lasted from 52-46 (6 years)
-Relative peace. More damningly nothing happened in 309 to validate a change from strife to non-strife. The date is chosen simply to match the first one (0 years)

Julius Caesar, the conqueror of first triumvirate, 1 year (45-44 BC)
Constantius Chlorus, the conqueror of first tetrarchy, 1 year (305-306 AD)
-Caesar had been ruling since at least 48. Held Rome since 52. And he never conquered the triumvirate since he was in it (4-8 years)
-Chlorus only just promoted to Augustus. Again, there only ever WAS one tetrarchy. And Constantius was a tetrarch till he died (1 year)

Triumvirate, 17 years (44-27 BC)
Tetrarchy, 18 years (306-324 AD)
-Antony dead by 30. Who were the other two triumvirs supposed to be? Octavian unopposed (14 years)
-Tetrarchy died when Constantine killed Maxentius in 312 (6 years)

Augustus, the conqueror of the second triumvirate, 41 years (27 BC-14 AD) or 37 years (23 BC-14 AD)
Constantine, the conqueror of the second tetrarchy, 31 years (306-307[337?] AD) or 24 years (313-337) or 13 years (324-337) where 324 marks the death of Licinius
-Killed Antony in 30, but if he counts the period of co-rule with Constantine they why not with Augustus who ruled (or co-ruled) from 44 BC-14 AD? (58 years including co-rule. 44 sole rule)
-Doesn't the fact that he can have three different sets of dates for the same event, none of which match Augustsus, kind of show you how seriously messed up his process is? (31 years including co-rule. 13 years sole rule)
-Please note what he does here. Constantine overlaps with the last one but Augustus doesn't. He's just removed 17 years without comment. You'll see more of that in a bit

The birth of Jesus Christ in the 27th year of Augustus (0 AD)
The birth of St. Basil the Great (the Great King) in the 27th year of Constantine (330 AD)
-Legit as per Augustus' counting
-No way. Basil was born in 303. Constantine was still serving under Diocletian at that time. Also, "The Great King"? Where does that come from?

Tiberius, 23 years (14-17[37] AD)
Constantius II, 24 years (337-361 AD) or 21 years (340-361)
-Correct (23 years)
-Correct (24 years)

Struggle between Tiberius and Germanicus, 13 years (6-19 AD)
Struggle between Constantius II and Constance[Constans], 13 years (337-350 AD)
-Germanicus rose to command in 14. Tiberius didn't rule till 14 either (5 years)
-Constans is correct but he left out third brother Constantine II (13 years)

Caligula, 4 years (37-41 AD)
Julian, 2 years (361-363 AD)
-True (4 years)
-True (2 years)

Strife, less than one year (41 AD)
Strife, less than one year (363 AD)
-Claudius succeeded immediately after. No "Strife" (0 years)
-The "Strife" was Jovian's rule which he will list later (1 years)

Claudius, 13 years (41-54 AD)
Valentinian, 11 years (364-375 AD)
-True (13 years)
-True (11 years)

Joint rule of Claudius and Pallantius within the "triumvirate", not more than 13 years (41-54 AD)
Joint rule of Valentinian and Valens within the "triumvirate", 11 years (367-375)
-Pallantius never ruled. Also, there was no triumvirate after Augustus. Fomenko has no idea what he's talking about (0 years)
-Valens ruled from 364. Not sure why he changed it. 14 years is closer to 13 than 11 (14 years)

Nero, 14 years (54-68)
Valens, 14 years (364-378)
-True (14 years)
-True, but remember: Valens was only co-ruler. And a junior one at that (14 years)

Joint rule of Nero with Burrus and Seneca, 8 years (54-62)
Joint rule of Valens with Valentinian and Gratian, 11 years (364-375)
-Burrus and Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until after this time (0 years) Finally, a Match!

Joint rule of Nero and Seneca, 11 years (54-65)
Joint rule of Valens and Gratian, 11 years (367-378)
-Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until 375 (3 years)

Galba, 1 year (68-69)
Jovian, 1 year (363-364)
-True (1 year)
-I can't help but notice that Galba came after Nero while Jovian came before Valens. He's changing the order of dates again to make them fit (1 year)

Strife, less than 1 year (69)
Strife, less than 1 year (378)
-True, though it lasted MORE than one year (1 year)
-True, though again, it lasted MORE than one year. Gothic War not ended until 382 (4 years)

Two Vespasians, 12 years (69-81)
Gratian and Valentinian II (after the death of Valens), 13 years (379-392)
-True (12 years)
-Gratian died in 383 (4 years)

Domitian, 15 years (81-96)
Theodosius the Great, 16 years (379-395)
-True (15 years)
-True, though please note the comparison. Domitian was a persecutor while Theodosius was THE Orthodox Christian ruler after Constantine. One Christian authors would wish to make? (16 years)

Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-True (2 years)
-Eugenius isn't an emperor and 'rules' during Theodosius' rule. Date fudging again (0 years)

Joint rule of Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Joint rule of Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-What's the point of listing them twice?

Trajan, 19 years (98-117) or 16 years (101-117)
Arcadius, 13 years (395-408)
-The first dates are true. Nerva died in 98 so why Fomenko would be confused I don't know. Probably because he wants to be to throw the dates into doubt (19 years)
-Arcadius was co-ruler with his brother Honorius (13 years)

Adrian[Hadrian], 21 years (117-138)
Honorius, 28 years (395-423)
-True (21 years)
-Honorius was co-ruler with his brother Arcadius so he can't be matched with Hadrian who succeeded Trajan (28 years, but when brother's years are removed only 9 years)

Antoninus Pius, 23 years (138-161)
Aetius, 21 years (423-444) or 14 years (423-438)
-True (23 years)
-Aetius wasn't emperor, didn't 'rule' until 430s. and was the most important man in the state until he died in 454 (0 years)

Marcus Aurelius, 19 years (161-180)
Valentinian III, 18 years (437-455) or or 11 years (444-455)
-True (19 years)
-Valentinian ruled since 425. Please note he's counted as co-ruling with Aetius. More date fudging (30 years)

Commodus, 16 years (176-192) or 12 years (180-192)
Recimer [Ricimer], 16 years (456-472)
-Ruled after 180 (12 years)
Ricimer never ruled (0 years)

Pertinax, less than 1 year (193)
Olybrius, less than 1 year (472)
-True (1 year)
-True, but skipped over 5 other emperors (1 year)

Didinus[Didius] Julianus, less than 1 year (193)
Glycerius, less than 1 year (473,474)
-Didius Julianus lasted 2 months (<1 year)
-Glycerius lasted 1 year and 3 months (>1 year)

Clodius Albinus, less than 1 year (193)
Julius Nepos, less than 1 year (474)
-Usurper who never gained recognition. Lasted til 197 (4 years if you count it. 0 if you don't)
-Ruled just over 1 year (1 year)

Pescennius Niger, 1 year (193-194)
Romulus Augustulus, 1 year (475-476)
-Usurper who never gained recognition (1 year if you count it)
-True (1 year)

Septimius Severus, 18 years (193-211)
Odoacer, 17 years (476-493)
-True (18 years)
-True, but not a Roman. Empire fell with Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was a Goth (17 years)

Caracalla, 24 years (193-217) or 6 years (211-217)
Theodoricor[Theodoric] the Great, 29 years (497-526) or 33 years (493-526)
-Ruled after 211. technically co-ruled after 209 but certainly wasn't doing any ruling in 193 at the age of five (6 years)
-The later date is correct. Still not a Roman though. Gothic king of Italy (33 years)

Please note that in that entire chart there are only 4 that match exactly (Including the periods of "strife") and a few others that come close. Please also note that the period from 82 BC to 217 AD is 299 years long while the period from 270to 526 is 256. So somewhere in a span of less than 300 years he managed to lose 43 of them. That's 1/6 the total years he's dealing with. Yet if you look at his chart the length matches almost exactly.

Length:: 8:32 Mins

New Chronology is a theory validated by astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient manuscripts that asserts: that Antiquity and Dark Ages are phantoms invented in the 16th 18th centuries. Human civilization is barely 1000 years old!

New Chronology complies with the most rigid scientific standards:

- It gives a coherent explanation of what we already know;
- It is consistent: independent lines of inquiry all lead to the same conclusion;
- The predictions it makes are confirmed empirically;

New Chronology goes by the following basic axioms:
- Chronology is the basis of history;
- Human evolution has always been linear, gradual and irreversible;
- The "cyclic" nature of human civilization is a myth, likewise all the gaps, duplicates, "dark ages" and "renaissances" that we know from consensual history are fantasy and hoax;
- The accumulation of geographical knowledge as reflected in cartography is a gradual and irreversible process;
- The closer in time is a given manuscript to the events described the less distortions it contains;
- There is no "useless" information in authentic ancient sources.

Fomenko asserts: There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by over two centuries of yoke and slavery, providing a formidable body of documental evidence to prove his assertion. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a trilingual state with Arabic and Turkic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Fomenko proves that official Russian history is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scholars brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs. Their ascension to the throne was the result of conspiracy, so they charged these imported historians with the mission of making Romanov's reign look legitimate.

Fomenko proves Ivan the Terrible to be a collation of four rulers, no less. They represented the two rival dynasties - the legitimate Godunov rulers and the ambitious Romanov upstarts.

As Fomenko blows consensual Russian history to smithereens, he successfully removes a crucial cornerstone from underneath the otherwise impeccable edifice of World History. Fomenko adds insult to injury, wiping out one by one: the Ancient Rome: the foundation of Rome in Italy is dated to the 14th century A. D., the Ancient Greece and its numerous poleis, which he identifies as the mediaeval crusader settlements on the territory of Greece.

The Ancient Egypt: the pyramids of Giza become dated to the 11th to 14th century A. D. and identified as the royal cemetery of the Global "Mongolian" Empire, no less. The civilization of the Ancient Egypt is irrefutably dated to the 11th to 15th century A. D. with the aid of the ancient Egyptian horoscopes cut in stone, like enormous Dendera horoscope that hangs in main entrance to the Louvre museum in Paris.

He was the first one to decipher and date unambiguously all such horoscopes, coming up with mediaeval dates in every case.

English historians rage at the suggestion that the history of Ancient England was de facto a Byzantine import transplanted to the English soil by the fugitive Byzantine nobility. To reward the English historians who consider themselves the true scribes of World History, the cover of the book "History: Fiction or Science?" portrays Tintoretto's Jesus Christ crucified on the Big Ben.

Fomenko wipes out the Ancient History of China outright. No such ancient history. Period. The compilation of the so-called Ancient Chinese History is reliably datable to the 17th 18th century only. It is perfectly recognizable as the Ancient European history, reworked and transcribed in hieroglyphs as yet another historical transplantation, this time performed on the Chinese soil by the loving Jesuit hands. The Chinese are the next in line to go berserk. Chinese history is inevitably bound to get both more ancient and more eventful, proportionally to the growing involvement of China in the world affairs. Chinese historians will keep on finding valid proof of prehistoric Chinese spaceflights until the Politburo orders them otherwise.

Islam with all its key figures appears as late as 15th-16th century A. D. as a branch of proto-Christianity. This is amply illustrated by imagery of Prophet Mahomet, archangel Gabriel, Heaven and Hell of this period. In today's Islam all imagery of the things living is taboo.

Arabic historians may find consolation in the crucial historical role of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th 17th century. The trouble is that this empire was initially a proto Christian state, with Hagia Sophia identifiable as Temple of Solomon, according to Fomenko! We can only guess if the acquisition of Alexander the Great (a Macedonian and a Christian!) as the founder of the Muslim World Empire will make Fomenko's theories more acceptable to the Arabic mainstream. He certainly does not spare any holy cows at all, claiming The Stone of Qa'Aba in Mecca to contain the lost Arch of the Covenant.


The history of religions according to Fomenko looks as follows: the pre-Christian period (before the 11th century and Jesus Christ ), Bacchic Christianity (11th to 12th century, before and after Jesus Christ), Jesus Christ Christianity (12th to 14th century) and its subsequent mutations (15th to 17th) into Orthodox Christianity, the Catholicism, Protestantism, Islam, Buddhism, and so on..

Saint Augustine was quite prescient when he said: "be wary of mathematicians,.. particularly when they speak the truth."

Henry Ford once said: "History is more or less bunk!"

Prominent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko not only proved it for a fact, but as true scientist tried to upgrade it into a rocket science.

This book will change your perception of History forever!
What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
Sounds Unbelievable?
Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?" by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.

I don't care what other people say of this book. Those affirmig it's fake, they hadn't ever read it. Or have some special reasons to do so. "Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see..." This book won't make you feel comfortable. It'll make you feel free. It'll make you feel you're "not the only one" to feel you'd been lied to for centuries.