History: Fact or Science (Anatoly Fomenko)
Overviews
The sources present a radical critique of established historical dating, employing statistical and astronomical analysis to challenge the accepted chronology of antiquity. The first text focuses on re-dating ancient celestial records, utilizing methodologies to analyze systematic errors in Ptolemy’s Almagest star catalogue and the complex symbolism of Egyptian zodiacs, concluding that these astronomical observations actually originated during the Middle Ages. The second source systematically overlays "ancient" history onto mediaeval events through the concept of dynastic parallelism, proposing that epochs like the Roman Imperial period and conflicts such as the Trojan and Tarquinian Wars are often just phantom reflections of later mediaeval originals, typically shifted by centuries. By applying these chronological shifts, the authors find correlations between figures like Pope Gregory Hildebrand and Jesus Christ, and interpret the legendary Trojan Horse as a realistic account of a siege using an aqueduct during the Gothic War. Ultimately, the collected material argues that large portions of classical history are derivative or duplicated narratives that belong to a much shorter and more recent timeline.
Downloads & Archive
You can find the first four volumes along with the 'Geometrical & Statistical Methods of Analysis of Star Configurations' on Archive https://archive.org/details/AnatolyFomenkoBooks
Volume Overviews
Volume One
This text, Anatoly Fomenko’s History: Fiction or Science?, presents the radical argument of the “New Chronology,” asserting that conventional world history dating is largely a fabrication engineered by academics and ecclesiastical powers during the 16th and 17th centuries. The author claims that historical records before the 11th century are unreliable, using modern statistical, archaeological, and astronomical methods to propose a dramatic compression of world history. Key evidence is drawn from re-dating artifacts like the Egyptian Dendera Zodiacs and analyzing biblical texts like the Book of Revelation, which Fomenko suggests describe celestial events of the Middle Ages. Ultimately, the book’s central purpose is to invalidate the established Scaligerian chronology and construct a radically revised historical timeline.
Volume Two
The presented excerpts are drawn from the radical "New Chronology" school, which asserts that conventional historical timelines, known as the Scaligerian chronology, are fundamentally flawed due to a massive, deliberate falsification of history. The authors employ complex "empirico-statistical methods" and dynastic parallelism to argue that major historical eras are simply shifted duplicates of genuine events that occurred far later, primarily in the European Middle Ages. Specifically, they demonstrate that foundational narratives, including episodes from the Bible (Genesis, Exodus) and the epic Trojan War, are merely phantom reflections of conflicts that actually transpired during the XI through XVI centuries A.D., often shifted by rigid intervals like 1053 or 1780 years. This controversial research aims to inspire a radical re-vision of history by proving that figures traditionally separated by millennia, such as Julius Caesar, the Byzantine general Belisarius, and the Gothic king Totila, are essentially doubles representing the same mediaeval originals.
Volume Three
This academic text challenges traditional chronology by employing mathematical and astronomical dating methods to reassess historical artifacts. A primary focus is the re-examination of Ptolemy’s Almagest star catalogue, where the authors use star motion analysis and systematic error compensation to argue against its widely accepted 2nd-century A.D. dating, suggesting a compilation period closer to the Middle Ages. Additionally, the study applies sophisticated software to analyze monumental Egyptian zodiacal horoscopes, concluding that these reliefs, traditionally considered ancient, consistently date to the 12th through 15th centuries A.D. Ultimately, the authors aim to prove that key records of classical and ancient history, including those related to Egypt and classical astronomy, are actually evidence of a much more recent, late medieval epoch.
Sources on Dating & Chronology
Dating Ptolemy's Almagest
This academic analysis, attributed to Anatoly Fomenko, undertakes a thorough statistical and astronomical revision of Ptolemy's Almagest, challenging the traditional 2nd-century dating based on inherent contradictions in the star coordinates and claims that much of the observational data is counterfeit. The rigorous methodology involves quantifying systematic and group errors across various celestial domains and performing statistical and geometrical dating procedures based on the movement and latitudinal deviations of well-measured stars. This analysis consistently yields a significantly later origin for the star catalog, placing its optimal date in the 10th century AD, a conclusion reinforced by dating calculations derived from lunar eclipses and planetary coverings documented within the text. Consequently, the authors argue for an overall revision of our views concerning the chronology and true role of the Almagest in the history of science.
Empirico Statistical Analysis
This text introduces a radical critique of established historical timelines, proposing a new methodology based on empirico-statistical methods and astronomical data to verify ancient events. The core finding is the Global Chronological Diagram (GCD), which the author contends is formed by four parallel and essentially identical historical chronicles that repeat the same events across different time periods. This chronological layering is attributed to three basic chronological shifts, which, when statistically corrected, suggest that much of what is considered ancient history is simply displaced, duplicated material from later centuries. Ultimately, the work challenges the traditional chronology established by figures like Scaliger and Petavius, asserting that reliable historical knowledge only begins much later, specifically around the 10th century A.D.
New Chronology
The New Chronology (NC), primarily developed by Anatoly T. Fomenko and his team, posits that the traditional consensus chronology (known as the Scaligerian chronology) is fundamentally flawed and artificially extended.
The theory provides a full explanation of the dating system and chronological shifts used to construct the conventional historical timeline, arguing that these shifts are the mechanism by which parallel history (duplicates or phantom copies of real events) was unintentionally or intentionally created.
Here is a comprehensive explanation drawing upon the sources:
1. The New Chronology Dating System (Methodology)
The New Chronology is constructed entirely using independent natural scientific methods, discarding the Scaligerian chronological scale and beginning its systematic chronology from scratch. These methods rely heavily on mathematical statistics and modern computational astronomy.
The core methods used to analyze historical texts and astronomical data include:
- ==Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material:== This involves analyzing texts quantitatively to find dependencies and repetitions.
- Volume Graphs/Maximum Correlation Principle: Comparing the distribution of information density across chronicles or texts. If volume graphs, representing the amount of text dedicated to specific years, attain maxima simultaneously, the texts are likely dependent, even if describing seemingly different epochs.
- Frequency-Damping Principle: Used for ordering historical texts chronologically by analyzing the frequency with which historical figures are mentioned, noting that an author mentions earlier figures less and less as the chronicle progresses.
- Frequency-Duplicating Principle (Duplicate Recognition): A method for identifying repetitions or duplicates within a text or across different texts.
- ==Dynastic Parallelism Method:== This method compares the sequences of rulers in different dynasties and the durations of their reigns (a numerical dynasty).
- It uses a "small-distortion principle," assuming that when chroniclers describe the same authentic dynasty, the numerical dynasties they produce will be closer to each other than they would be to an entirely different, authentic dynasty.
- The degree of proximity is measured by a proximity coefficient, such as VSSD (often found to be extremely small, e.g., $10^{-8}$ to $10^{-12}$, indicating statistical dependence).
- ==Astronomical Dating:== Used to date ancient artifacts and texts based on astronomical phenomena described within them, as these positions change predictably over time.
- Techniques include dating star catalogues by proper star motions (like the Almagest catalogue), or dating horoscopes (Egyptian zodiacs) and eclipse descriptions using modern planetary theories. For example, the Almagest star catalogue observations are dated to the VII-XIII century A.D. epoch, contradicting its traditional dating to the 2nd century A.D..
2. The Chronology Shift and the Global Chronological Diagram (GCD)
Through the application of these statistical and astronomical methods, Fomenko and his team discovered that the Global Chronological Diagram (GCD)—the traditional history of Europe, the Mediterranean, Egypt, and the Near East—is statistically equivalent to a composition of four practically identical chronicles.
These chronicles are essentially copies (or phantom reflections) of a shorter, original chronicle ($C_1$), shifted rigidly backwards in time. The period before the 10th century A.D. is composed of these phantom reflections.
The three primary rigid chronological shifts discovered, counted backward from the later original chronicle, are:
- The Byzantine-Roman Shift (333 years) (sometimes referred to as 360 years).
- Example: This shift correlates the history of the Second Roman Empire (allegedly 82 B.C. – 217 A.D.) with the Third Roman Empire (allegedly 270–526 A.D.). The difference between the alleged foundation of the New Rome (330 A.D.) and a later foundation (663 A.D.) is $663 - 330 = 333$ years.
- The Roman Shift (1,053 years) (sometimes referred to as 1,000 years).
- Example: This shift superimposes the First Roman Empire (Regal Rome, starting c. 753 B.C.) over the Third Roman Empire. The date of Christ’s life, when shifted backward 1053 years, was calculated to fall around 1 A.D..
- The Graeco-Biblical Shift (1,778 or 1,800 years) (sometimes 1,810 years).
- Example: This shift aligns the "ancient" Greek and Biblical history with events in the Middle Ages. The Trojan War (c. XIII century B.C.) corresponds to the Gothic War (c. VI century A.D.), and both are phantom reflections of a real mediaeval war around the XIII century A.D.. The total shift from 1225 B.C. to 553 A.D. is roughly 1,778 years.
The underlying "authentic" history, free from duplicates, primarily occurred from circa the 10th century A.D. to the 17th century A.D..
3. How the Shift Works as a Parallel History Creation Method
The chronological shifts did not happen randomly; they are evidence of a universal mechanism that led to chroniclers' errors during the creation of the current history model in the 16th and 17th centuries by chronologists like J. Scaliger and D. Petavius.
The shift mechanism works as a parallel history creator in the following ways:
- Serialization of Duplicates: When mediaeval chronologists assembled records, they mistook multiple versions of the same short chronicle (which were outwardly different due to language, renaming, and slight distortions) as distinct accounts describing separate historical periods. Instead of aligning them in parallel, they patched them together in series, introducing rigid time shifts between them. This created phantom reflections of real mediaeval events stretching back into "antiquity".
- Recalculation and Forgery: Simple operations allowed later editors to fabricate "ancient" documents to fit the nascent Scaligerian timeline. For instance, by comparing modern star longitudes to old ones and dividing by precession rate, a historian could "deduce" a false date far in the past. Recalculating all stellar longitudes by a single constant value was a simple and fast falsification method to shift a recently compiled catalogue into a necessary historical epoch (e.g., the early A.D. period).
- Renaming and Misidentification: The confusion of different geographical names or figures who were contemporaries led to parallel narratives. For example, the confusion between "Rome" in Italy and the "New Rome" (Constantinople) in the Middle Ages, combined with chronological errors, likely generated the 333-year shift. Similarly, the three major shifts generated many phantom characters (e.g., Hipparchus being a phantom reflection of Tycho Brahe).
- Layered Narrative Structure: Due to the shifts, many ancient historical figures and events are found to be "sums" of several later events. For instance, a single event described in "ancient" times might be a combination of two real events separated by 333 years, 1053 years, or their sum. This multilayered nature means that an event in the Scaligerian textbook may contain two different layers of real events separated by one of the shift values (e.g., the events described in Thucydides' History may contain material separated by 335 years, equivalent to the Roman/Byzantine shift).
In essence, the shift is not merely a correction but a systematic decryption of the errors introduced during the historical reconstruction process, revealing the structure of the "modern textbook" as a collection of statistically dependent chronicles or duplicates.
Analogy
Analogy: Think of a film editor who receives four slightly faded copies of the same 30-minute historical documentary (the original short chronicle). Mistaking them for four different documentaries covering four distinct historical centuries, the editor splices them end-to-end, labeling the second, third, and fourth copies with dates 300, 1000, and 1800 years earlier than the first. The resulting 120-minute product (the "modern textbook") now contains the same events—like a major royal coronation or a large war—repeating three times in the timeline, incorrectly separated by vast stretches of "dark ages." The chronological shifts are simply the mathematically determined lengths of the gaps that need to be eliminated to fold the film back into the single, true, shorter documentary.
The Mathematics Behind the Forgery of History
The New Chronology (NC), primarily championed by Anatoly T. Fomenko and his team (who include mathematicians, physicists, and specialists in geometry and topology), asserts that the forgery and subsequent error-ridden compilation of history hinges upon predictable mathematical principles used both to create the artificial timeline and, conversely, to expose its flaws.
Here is an explanation of the mathematics behind the suggested forgery, the frequent use of numbers like 33 and 333, and the role of dynasties in this system:
The core mathematical approach of the New Chronology is the rigorous quantitative analysis of historical texts and astronomical records to expose statistical dependencies (duplicates). The actual forgery or falsification process, according to the sources, was itself mathematical or pseudoscientific in nature, often exploiting astronomical calculation methods of the time.
Dynastic Parallelism of Great Lineages
- Phantom Reflection Images: https://andreumarfull.com/2017/11/15/the-dynastic-parallelism/
- Imgur Album: https://imgur.com/a/dyDGkeL
Mathematical Methods for Discovering Falsification (The NC Approach):
The NC utilizes modern mathematical statistics and computational methods, verified against reliably dated material (post-XVII century A.D.), to confirm its efficiency. Key methods include:
- Maximum Correlation Principle (Volume Graphs): This method compares the density of information (volume functions) describing different historical periods. If the volume graphs for two ostensibly independent texts (X and Y) attain maxima simultaneously and the proximity coefficient $d(X,Y)$ is extremely small (e.g., $7 \cdot 10^{-5}$ or $6 \cdot 10^{-11}$), the texts or the periods they describe are deemed dependent or statistically parallel (duplicates).
- Dynastic Parallelism Method (Small-Distortion Principle): This method quantifies the similarity between sequences of rulers (numerical dynasties) based primarily on the duration of their reigns. The similarity is measured by a proximity coefficient, $\mathbf{\Lambda}$ (or VSSD), which, for dependent dynasties, registers an "anomalously small value," typically in the range of $\mathbf{10^{-12}}$ to $\mathbf{10^{-8}}$. This principle asserts that chroniclers distort authentic dynasties only slightly; the discrepancy between two genuinely different dynasties is far greater than the distortion within a single dynasty copied multiple times.
- Frequency-Damping and Duplicating Principles: These methods analyze the frequencies of names mentioned in texts (chapter generations) to correctly order historical fragments in time and identify repetitions of historical figures or events.
- Astronomical Dating: This involves running modern planetary theories backward in time to date phenomena mentioned in ancient texts (e.g., star catalogues, horoscopes, and eclipses). This process yielded dates for "ancient" artifacts far into the Middle Ages (e.g., the Almagest catalogue observations date to the IX-XVI century A.D.).
Mathematical Techniques of Falsification (The Scaligerian Approach):
The primary way history was fabricated involved manipulating numerical and astronomical data during the reconstruction of history in the XVI-XVII centuries:
- Rigid Astronomical Shift: The simplest and fastest falsification method was to take a recently compiled star catalogue (e.g., one dating back 100–200 years) and shift all stellar longitudes by a single constant value to transplant it into a necessary "ancient" historical epoch (such as the early A.D. period). This allowed chronologists to fabricate "ancient" documents that appeared to fit the timeline. Robert Newton's work indicated that Claudius Ptolemy's observational data had been recalculated for a different epoch.
- Retrograde Calculation of Events: Historians and astronomers of the XVII century, relying on imperfect astronomical theory, would calculate planetary positions and eclipses backwards to fit the desired Scaligerian dates. These calculations were then deceptively written into texts like the Almagest and declared to be authentic "ancient observations". The absence of "ancient" solar eclipses in the Almagest is explained by the fact that the calculation of solar eclipses was a formidable task even for late XVI – early XVII century astronomers, leading them to refrain from including them in the fabricated history.
- Substitution Errors in Dating: Chronological errors could arise from confusing written symbols. For instance, in ancient Greek notation, the digits 1 and 4 were easy to confuse as they used similar symbols. A more systematic error occurred when chroniclers recorded dates using literal symbols (abbreviations, e.g., M.C.L. for "Maximus Caesar Leo"). When later chronologists formally substituted these letters for numbers (e.g., M=1000, C=100, L=50), they created a numerical date that was hundreds or thousands of years off the original meaning, automatically generating chronological shifts backwards.
2. Examination of the Numerical Shifts 33 and 333
The frequent occurrence of 33, 333, and their multiples relates directly to the discovery of the three basic chronological shifts that define the structure of the "modern textbook" (Global Chronological Diagram, or GCD):
The 333-Year Shift:
The value 333 years is one of the three foundational shifts discovered through statistical methods.
- Origin: This shift (often cited as 333 or 360 years) is known as the Byzantine-Roman shift and stems from the confusion between the foundation dates of the two Romes: Rome in Italy and the New Rome (Constantinople) on the Bosphorus. One hypothesized chronologist confusion was aligning the foundation of New Rome in 330 A.D. with a later date of 663 A.D., resulting in a 333-year gap $(663 - 330 = 333)$.
- Multiplier Role: The sources suggest that this shift, or a closely related value like 360 years, might be the fundamental building block for the longer shifts.
- The 1,053-year shift can be represented as the sum of shifts: $1053 = 360 + 360 + 333$ (approximately).
- The 1,778-year shift is approximately $1053 + 720 = 1773$ years (close to 1,778), where the 720-year shift is the difference between the 1,053-year and 333-year shifts.
- Numerical Misinterpretation: The number 333 (or approximately 340) might have been generated by the misinterpretation of abbreviated literal dates. For instance, a reference to Emperor Maximilian I's rule (1493-1519 A.D.) written as M.C.L.III (interpreted as "3rd year since Maximilian") could be erroneously decoded numerically as 1153, generating a backward shift of $\mathbf{343}$ years ($1496 - 1153 = 343$).
The Significance of 33:
The number 33 years frequently appears in connection with the dating of Christ, which serves as a crucial chronological reference point:
- Christ's Age: The Gospels traditionally state Christ was 33 years old at the time of the Crucifixion.
- NC Re-Dating: The New Chronology, based on the 1,053-year chronological shift, argues that the traditional date of the Crucifixion (33 A.D.) aligns with 1086 A.D. ($33 + 1053 = 1086$). This dating aligns Christ's death (1086 A.D.) closely with the death of the reformer Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand (1085 A.D.).
- The Era Start: This correlation suggests that the "new era" (Anno Domini) might have originally been counted from the phantom year 1053 A.D. in modern chronology. The conventional calendar calculated the Nativity by subtracting 33 years from the Crucifixion date.
The source material does not refer to these numbers as "Masonic," but rather demonstrates how the numerical coincidences inherent in the duplication process force these values to appear repeatedly in astronomical, biographical, and chronological comparisons.
3. How Dynasties Factor into This System of Falsifying History
Dynasties are central to the falsification process because they provide the sequential, numeric "skeletal structure" upon which chronological models are built.
Dynasties Reveal Duplication
The statistical analysis of dynastic lists is considered a fundamental, quantitative method for uncovering dependent epochs. The length of a king’s rule is viewed as a key invariant parameter that chroniclers were less likely to intentionally distort than biographical details.
- Confirmation of Shifts: Dynastic parallelism proved crucial in validating the chronological shifts. For example, comparing the rule durations of the First Roman Empire (Regal Rome) with the Third Roman Empire confirmed the $1,053$-year shift.
- Biblical/European Duplication: The dynastic parallelism method was used to identify that the ancient Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah were duplicates (phantom reflections) of the Western and Eastern Roman Empires, respectively, as well as reflections of the Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century A.D. and the Habsburg Empire of the XIV-XVII century A.D..
- High Correlation: The proximity coefficient $\Lambda$ for key dynastic pairs (like the Holy Roman Empire (X-XIII century) and the ancient Roman Empire (I B.C.–III A.D.)) yielded an anomalously small value of $\mathbf{1.3 \cdot 10^{-12}}$, indicating a high degree of statistical dependence.
Dynastic Manipulation Creates Phantom History
The errors made by ancient/medieval chronographers in handling dynastic records resulted in the creation of phantom histories stretched back into antiquity.
- Serialization of Parallel Dynasties: The central mistake was mistaking multiple versions of the same short dynastic chronicle for distinct sequences covering different epochs. These versions were then "patched together in series," with rigid chronological shifts applied between them, thereby artificially extending history backward.
- Mistaking Co-rulers: Chroniclers often differed in how they accounted for co-rulers. One scribe might simplify a history by recording co-rulers in succession, artificially extending the duration of the dynasty. Another might "combine rulers" by superimposing their reigns, reducing the overall time frame. For example, the sources note that separating the joint rules of the Third Roman Empire made its reign table virtually identical to the Second Roman Empire's. This process produced the Second and Third Roman Empires as "phantom duplicates" of a later medieval dynasty.
- Renaming for Prestige: The falsification was sometimes driven by "royal pretensions" or political needs to secure claims over property. Medieval rulers might have invented fictitious great Christian rulers or appropriated ancient titles and events to create "ancient rights of possession," leading to the renaming and duplication of dynasties. For instance, certain documents using "Pharaoh" for Frederick II confirm the parallelism between medieval Roman history and Biblical history, suggesting that medieval titles were later declared to refer to deep antiquity.
In short, the traditional dynastic lists, which are considered the "spinal column" of global chronology, are viewed mathematically as multiple, statistically similar vectors, intentionally or accidentally offset by rigid shifts, transforming a brief authentic history into a long sequence of repeating periods.
Table of Parallel Dynasties
| The kingdom of Navarre (Pamplona) | The kingdom of Sweden |
|---|---|
| Fortun Garzes 880/905 (25) | Gustavus II Adolphus 1611/1632 (21) |
| Sancho I 905/925 (20) | Christina 1632/1654 (22) |
| Jimeno 925/931 (6) | Charles X Gustavus 1654/1660 (6) |
| Garcia I 931/970 (39) | Charles XI 1660/1697 (37) |
| Sancho II, Abarca 970/994 (24) | Charles XII 1697/1718 (21) |
| Garcia II, the Tremulous 994/1004 (10) | Ulrica Eleonora 1718/1720 (2) |
| Sancho III, the Great 1004/1035 (31) | Frederick I 1720/1751 (31) |
| Garcia III 1035/1054 (19) | Adolphus Frederick 1751/1771 (20) |
| Sancho IV 1054/1076 (22) | Gustavus III 1771/1792 (21) |
| Sancho V 1076/1094 (18) | Gustavus IV Adolphus 1792/1809 (17) |
| Peter I 1094 /1104 (10) | Charles XIII 1809/1818 (9) |
| Alfonso I, the Battler 1104/1134 (30) | Charles XIV 1818/1844 (26) |
| Garcia IV, the Restorer 1134/1150 (16) | Oscar I 1844/1859 (15) |
| Sancho VI, the Wize 1150/1194 (44) | Charles XV+Oscar II 1859/1907 (48) |
| SanchoVII, the Strong 1194/1234 (40) | Gustavus V 1907/1950 (43) |
_https://web.archive.org/web/20181118151114/http://hbar.phys.msu.ru/gorm/fomenko/dynasty.htm_
Uncovering History's Echoes: An Introduction to Dynastic Parallelism
Introduction: Is History Repeating Itself?
What if the Roman Empire of Augustus and the Roman Empire of Constantine were the exact same period, just recorded twice? What if the legendary Trojan War was actually fought in the Middle Ages? These are the kinds of radical questions posed by a theory called ‘dynastic parallelism’.
This document provides a clear and simple introduction to this unconventional historical model. Our goal is to help you understand its central claim: that our conventional historical timeline contains repeating dynastic patterns separated by specific, consistent time shifts. All the concepts and examples presented here are drawn directly from the author's analysis in the source material.
1. The Core Idea: What is 'Dynastic Parallelism'?
In simple terms, the theory of dynastic parallelism challenges the traditional historical timeline, which its author refers to as "Scaligerian chronology." It proposes that this conventional timeline is flawed and has been artificially lengthened. According to this theory, events and dynasties we believe are separated by many centuries are, in fact, different accounts of the same historical periods.
The theory is built on two foundational concepts:
- Phantom Reflections: This is the idea that a single, real historical period and its rulers were recorded multiple times by different chroniclers. The author suggests that later on, historians mistakenly placed these duplicate accounts—or "phantom reflections"—into different, distant centuries, creating the illusion of a much longer history.
- Chronological Shifts: Central to this theory is the idea that these phantom reflections are not placed randomly in the timeline. They are separated from the original events by consistent time gaps, or "shifts." The author identifies several key shifts, with the most common ones being approximately 330 years, 1053 years, and 1800 years.
To see how these abstract concepts are applied, let's look at the first major case study the author identifies: the history of the Roman Empire.
2. Case Study 1: The Two Roman Empires
The theory puts forward its first major example of a phantom reflection in the duplication of the Roman Empire. The analysis claims that what we know as the "Second Roman Empire" (beginning around 60 B.C.) and the "Third Roman Empire" (beginning around 284 A.D.) are actually two different descriptions of the same historical period. The author proposes that these two accounts are separated by a chronological shift of approximately 330 years.
To illustrate this point, the author presents a series of striking biographical parallels between the emperors of these two eras.
| Second Roman Empire Ruler (The "Original") | Third Roman Empire Ruler (The "Phantom Reflection") | Key Parallels Identified in the Text |
|---|---|---|
| Pompey | Diocletian | Both are said to have initiated a "new epoch" with large-scale reforms that reshaped the empire. |
| Octavian Augustus | Constantine I | Both were considered divine figures or saints who established a "New Rome" as their capital city. |
| Tiberius (23-year reign) | Constantius II (24-year reign) | Both had nearly identical reign durations and are recorded as having died unexpectedly. |
| Caligula (4-year reign) | Julian (2-year reign) | Both had short, similar reign durations, and their deaths were immediately followed by civil discord. |
According to the author's statistical model, the probability of such a long sequence of biographical parallels occurring by chance is infinitesimally small, suggesting they are not independent histories but duplicates. These parallels, the author argues, extend beyond rulers and into the realm of legendary conflicts.
3. Case Study 2: Ancient Wars as Medieval Conflicts
Perhaps the most dramatic claim of the theory is that some of the most famous wars of antiquity are actually phantom reflections of medieval conflicts. The author's analysis leads to the claim that the legendary "ancient" Trojan War, the Roman Tarquinian War, and the Gothic War of the 6th century A.D. are not separate events. Instead, the theory proposes they are all different retellings of a single, real war that the author places in the 13th century A.D.
To connect these three wars, the author presents a series of powerful narrative parallels.
- The "Legend of a Woman" The theory points out that all three versions of the war were supposedly started by a conflict over a high-profile woman. In the Trojan War, it was Helen. In the Tarquinian War, it was Lucretia. In the Gothic War, it was Queen Amalasuntha. In each case, an offense against this central female figure is said to have served as the catalyst for the entire conflict.
- Parallel Heroes The author identifies a direct parallel between the main heroes of the conflicts. The legendary Greek warrior Achilles from the Trojan War is presented as a phantom reflection of the 6th-century Roman general Belisarius from the Gothic War.
- The "Trojan Horse" Explained The theory offers a novel explanation for the iconic Trojan Horse, suggesting the legend is a distorted retelling of a real military tactic from the Gothic War. During that conflict, Roman soldiers secretly entered the city of Naples by sneaking through a large, abandoned aqueduct. The author points out the phonetic similarity between the Latin words for water (aqua) and horse (equa), proposing that a story about soldiers using a stone "aqua-duct" was later misunderstood as a story about a wooden "equa," or horse.
These specific case studies are part of a much broader application of the theory across the entirety of ancient history.
4. Expanding the Theory: Biblical History and Ancient Greece
The theory of dynastic parallelism is applied to many other areas of traditional history, proposing that entire civilizations and their timelines are phantom reflections of more recent events.
Here are two of the most memorable examples from the source text that illustrate the theory's vast scope:
- Biblical Kingdoms: The theory identifies the biblical Kingdom of Israel as a phantom reflection of the Western Roman Empire. The author shows that the timeline of Israel's kings and the timeline of the late Roman emperors align when a chronological shift of approximately 1053 years is applied.
- Ancient Greece: The author proposes that the entire history of "Ancient Greece" is a phantom reflection of medieval Greece from the 11th-16th centuries, created by a chronological shift of about 1800 years. The most powerful example given for this parallel is the claim that Alexander the Great is a reflection of the 15th-century Ottoman Sultan Mohammed II "the Conqueror."
5. Conclusion: A New Way to Look at the Past
The central idea of dynastic parallelism is a radical one: that our recorded history may be significantly shorter and more repetitive than is commonly believed. It suggests our timeline is populated by phantom dynasties, duplicate events, and historical echoes created by consistent chronological shifts.
So, why might this have happened? The theory proposes that history was intentionally falsified and lengthened in the 16th and 17th centuries. According to the author, the goal was to create a deep, "ancient" past that could be used to justify the political and religious claims of rulers and institutions during that period.
This theory represents a fundamental re-examination of history, based on the author's statistical analysis of historical texts, reign durations, and astronomical records. Whether one agrees with its conclusions or not, it offers a powerful and fundamentally different lens through which to view the past and the stories we tell about it.
The Medieval Bible: Uncovering a Controversial New Timeline
What if the familiar stories of the Bible—the Exodus, the conquest of the Promised Land, and even the life of Jesus Christ—did not take place in the ancient Near East, but in medieval Europe? This document explores a controversial theory suggesting that the Biblical narrative is not a record of ancient events, but a series of "phantom reflections" of conflicts, dynasties, and lives from the Middle Ages.
This theory, known as the New Chronology and developed primarily by scholar Anatoly Fomenko, claims that a major falsification of global history occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries. Proponents of this theory argue that this falsification was not accidental but a deliberate effort, primarily to create historical precedents that would legitimize territorial and political claims. According to their work, medieval chronicles were deliberately and artificially shifted back in time, creating a "phantom" ancient world that never existed as we know it. This narrative will guide you through the core claims and most striking examples of this radical new timeline.
1. The Core Example: Jesus Christ in the Middle Ages
The New Chronology's most central and powerful claim is its re-dating of the life of Jesus Christ. The theory posits that he lived in the 12th century A.D. and that his biography is a composite of several medieval figures, whose lives were later projected back into the first century.
1.1. The Phantom Reflection of Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand
The primary evidence offered for this claim is the striking parallel between the life of Jesus Christ and that of Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand, a pivotal religious figure from the 11th century. According to the theory, this parallelism is not a coincidence but the result of a single historical account—that of a 12th-century figure—being copied, misinterpreted, and erroneously dated by later chronologists to the 11th century, creating a "phantom" duplicate.
This theory presents a powerful example of "dynastic parallelism," where one historical account appears to be a duplicate of another, separated by a distinct chronological shift. A key piece of astronomical evidence cited is a total solar eclipse that occurred in 1086 A.D., one year after Hildebrand's death. The theory suggests medieval chronologists erroneously identified this as the Crucifixion eclipse and, by counting back 33 years, established an incorrect date for the Nativity in the mid-11th century, thereby creating the 100-year offset for Hildebrand's life.
The table below illustrates the key parallels identified by the theory's proponents.
| Feature / Event | Life of Jesus Christ (as dated by the theory) | Life of Pope Gregory VII Hildebrand |
|---|---|---|
| Start of Mission | Began his mission at approximately 30 years of age. | Began his major reformist activity in Rome in 1049, at age 29 or 30. |
| Key Life Event | The Crucifixion, an event of paramount importance. | His death in 1085 A.D. marks the end of a pivotal career. |
| Associated Eclipse | Gospels describe a solar eclipse at the Crucifixion. | A total solar eclipse on May 21, 1086, is identified as the Crucifixion eclipse, aligning precisely with the year after Hildebrand's death. |
1.2. The Second Reflection: St. Basil the Great
To reinforce the concept of multiple historical reflections, the theory presents St. Basil the Great, who lived in the 4th century A.D., as another phantom reflection of Jesus Christ. According to this view, St. Basil's biography is not an original account but another echo of the life of Christ, placed centuries earlier by chronologists.
Key biographical parallels include:
- The Trial: Both Jesus and St. Basil the Great were put on trial before two influential rulers (Herod and Pilate for Jesus; Emperor Valens and the high priest of Pontus for Basil).
- Miracles: Both are credited with performing a virtually identical list of miracles, including exorcising spirits and raising the dead.
- Betrayal: Both stories feature a betrayal by a disciple for money (Judas for Jesus; a disciple of the Great King for Basil).
While the parallels in the New Testament are focused on individual biographies, the theory argues that the Old Testament contains entire dynastic and national histories that have been misplaced in time. This is where the scope of the New Chronology expands from individuals to empires.
2. Uncovering the Old Testament in European History
The New Chronology broadens its scope to argue that the Old Testament is not a history of ancient Israel but a rendition of medieval European history. The core of this argument is that the Biblical kingdoms of Israel and Judah are phantom reflections of the medieval Holy Roman Empire, with a consistent chronological shift making their histories align.
2.1. When Kingdoms Overlap
The theory claims that a chronological shift of roughly 1840 years between the kingdom of Israel and its proposed medieval original, the Holy Roman Empire, causes their dynastic histories to overlap with remarkable precision. This proposed shift implies that the chronicles of the Holy Roman Empire were essentially used as a template, with names and locations altered, and then artificially projected nearly two millennia into the past to create the history of ancient Israel.
2.2. Adam and Eve and the Trojan War
The theory reinterprets the foundational story of Adam and Eve, suggesting it is not a tale from the dawn of humanity but a reflection of the medieval "legend of a woman" that served as the cause of the Trojan War.
- The Setting: The Biblical Eden is identified as phonetically similar to Mount Ida, the setting for the "judgement of Paris," the mythological event that directly led to the Trojan War.
- The "Fall": The story of the "forbidden fruit" and the subsequent banishment from Eden is presented as a parallel to the "apple of discord" and the judgment of Paris, which ignited a catastrophic war and resulted in the fall of Troy.
- The Key Figures: In this interpretation, Eve is paralleled with Helen of Troy, and Adam with Paris. The Biblical Serpent is paralleled with the serpent from the "ancient" Greek myth of Perseus and Andromeda, which the theory claims is not a separate story but another allegorical rendition of the same foundational event involving a woman, a hero, and a serpentine antagonist.
2.3. Moses and the Exodus from Medieval Rome
The epic story of the Exodus is also reframed within this medieval context. The theory proposes that it is not a story of Hebrews leaving ancient Egypt but a reflection of the Goths being driven out of Rome in the 6th century A.D.
- The Oppressor: The Biblical Pharaoh, whose unvocalized name is given as TRN or PhRN, is identified with the Goths or the Tarquins of Rome, whose name is transcribed as TRQN. The theory links both terms to the Franks, suggesting these names were used interchangeably in different chronicles to refer to the same group.
- The Escape: The Biblical exodus of the Israelites from "MS-Rome" (a term the theory uses for Biblical Egypt, suggesting the original text referred to a location phonetically similar to Rome) is seen as a parallel to the historical exodus of the defeated Goths from the city of Rome.
- The Drowning: The dramatic drowning of the Pharaoh's army in the Red Sea is identified as a parallel to the final, decisive battle of the Goths, which took place near the volcano Vesuvius.
2.4. Joshua's Conquest and the Song of Roland
Continuing this line of argument, the theory claims that the Biblical book of Joshua is a parallel of medieval European chronicles, most notably the Song of Roland. In this framework, the figure of Joshua is identified as yet another reflection of Jesus Christ.
- The Sun Stands Still: The famous Biblical story where Joshua commands the sun to stand still over Gibeon (Joshua 10:12-13) is claimed to be directly paralleled in the Song of Roland. In the medieval epic, God stops the sun to allow Charlemagne to defeat his enemies. This parallel is significant because the earliest surviving manuscript of the Song of Roland dates to the 12th century, placing its narrative squarely in the medieval period that the theory claims is the true setting for these events.
- The Fall of a City: The destruction of Jericho, where the Israelites march around the city for days before its walls miraculously fall, is presented as a parallel to the sieges and captures of cities described in medieval Frankish chronicles.
These examples, from Genesis to Joshua, are presented as evidence supporting the theory's core argument that the Old Testament is a medieval European chronicle, mistakenly placed in the ancient world.
3. Conclusion: A New Perspective on Ancient Texts
The New Chronology presents a radical and comprehensive reimagining of world history. Its central argument, as explored here, is that the stories of the Bible are not records of ancient events. Instead, they are medieval chronicles describing people, kingdoms, and wars in medieval Europe and Byzantium. According to the theory, these histories were artificially shifted back in time by 17th-century chronologists, creating the "ancient" world we study today. Ultimately, the New Chronology does not just question a few dates; it challenges the very methods—textual, archaeological, and chronological—upon which our entire understanding of the ancient world is built, demanding that we re-evaluate historical sources through a purely mathematical and astronomical lens.
A Comparative Analysis of Parallel Historical Narratives in the 'New Chronology' Framework
1.0 Introduction to the 'New Chronology' and its Core Theses
This document provides a systematic outline of the central claims presented in the 'New Chronology,' a theory of history that challenges conventional timelines. The theory posits that the established historical narrative, particularly for periods prior to the XVII century, contains fundamental errors. It argues that much of what is considered ancient history is not a record of antiquity but rather a collection of "phantom duplicates"—accounts of medieval events that have been chronologically displaced and projected into a fictitious past. The purpose of this analysis is to offer a neutral, structured synthesis of these claims as detailed in the source material, providing a clear framework for analytical review based exclusively on the provided texts.
The foundational premise of the 'New Chronology' is that the dominating historical discourse was crafted in the XVI-XVII centuries. Proponents of this theory argue that the application of empirico-statistical and astronomical dating methods reveals numerous chronological superimpositions, or "phantom duplicates," in recorded history before the XVII century. These methods, they claim, invalidate the conventional (Scaligerian) chronology and reveal that events and dynasties thought to be separated by centuries are, in fact, different accounts of the same historical originals.
The following sections will systematically juxtapose these alleged historical parallels as detailed by the theory's proponents. The analysis will cover claimed duplications in dynastic successions, major military conflicts, biblical narratives, and the histories of entire civilizations, providing a comprehensive overview of the theory's core comparative arguments.
2.0 Dynastic Parallelism: The Second and Third Roman Empires
This section analyzes one of the foundational parallelisms claimed by the 'New Chronology': the identification of the Second Roman Empire (conventionally dated c. 31 BC - 217 AD) as a phantom duplicate of the Third Roman Empire (c. 270 - 526 AD). The theory asserts that this duplication was created by a chronological shift of approximately 330 years, resulting in two nearly identical historical narratives being recorded as separate, sequential epochs.
2.1 Imperial Dynastic Superimposition
The 'New Chronology' argues that the sequence and duration of imperial reigns in the Second and Third Roman Empires align too closely to be coincidental. The following table illustrates this claimed superimposition.
Comparative Imperial Reigns: Second vs. Third Roman Empires
| Second Roman Empire (c. 31 BC - 217 AD) | Third Roman Empire (c. 270 - 526 AD) | Nature of Parallel |
|---|---|---|
| Pompey, Caesar, Crassus (First Triumvirate) | Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius I (First Tetrarchy) | Similar tripartite power structure. |
| Octavian Augustus (37 years) | Constantine I (31 years) | Founders of a "new epoch," similar reign duration. |
| Tiberius (23 years) | Constantius II (24 years) | Successor/son, nearly identical reign duration. |
| Caligula (4 years) | Julian (2 years) | Similar short reign duration. |
| Nero (14 years) | Valens (14 years) | Identical reign duration, similar biographical events. |
| Trajan (19 years) | Arcadius (13 years) | Similar reign duration, parallels in military conflicts. |
| Hadrian (21 years) | Honorius (28 years) | Parallels in the decline of the army. |
| Antoninus Pius (23 years) | Aetius (21 or 14 years) | Similar reign duration. |
| Commodus (12 or 16 years) | Recimer (17 years) | Similar reign duration, both ruled through proxies. |
| Septimius Severus (18 years) | Odoacer (17 years) & Theodoric (33 years) | Parallels in foreign origin and rise to power. |
2.2 Biographical and Event-Based Parallels
Beyond reign durations, the theory presents a series of specific biographical and event-based parallels between corresponding rulers. These are offered as further evidence that the two imperial histories are describing the same set of events.
- The First Triumvirate vs. The First Tetrarchy: The power-sharing structure of the First Triumvirate (Pompey, Caesar, Crassus) is presented as a direct parallel to the First Tetrarchy (Diocletian, Maximian, Constantius I). In both cases, a group of three dominant figures governs the empire.
- Octavian Augustus vs. Constantine I: A significant number of parallels are drawn between these two figures:
- Founders of a New Epoch: Both rulers are credited with initiating a "new epoch" in Roman history. Octavian's reign marked the beginning of the Principate, while Constantine's is associated with the Dominate and the rise of Christianity.
- Divine Association: Octavian was declared divine during his lifetime and later deified. Constantine was associated with the God of the Sun and later venerated by the Christian Church as a saint equal to the apostles.
- Capital-Building: Octavian is said to have transformed Rome into a "new city." Constantine famously transferred the imperial capital from Rome to "New Rome" (Constantinople).
- Tiberius vs. Constantius II: The parallelism here focuses on their relationship to their powerful predecessors and their reign lengths. Tiberius was the successor and son of Augustus, reigning for 23 years. Constantius II was the son of Constantine I, reigning for a nearly identical 24 years.
- Nero vs. Valens: The reigns of Nero (54-68 AD) and Valens (364-378 AD) are claimed to be parallel due to their association with religious persecution and major rebellions.
- Persecution: Nero's reign is famously associated with the persecution of Christians in Rome. Valens is also described as a persistent persecutor of Christians.
- Rebellion: A major uprising under Julius Vindex on the empire's western borders occurred during Nero's reign. During the reign of Valens, a significant Gothic uprising occurred on the empire's borders.
- Hadrian vs. Honorius: The theory highlights the decline of the Roman army as a key parallel. The source asserts that historical descriptions of the army's decay under both emperors are "virtually the same." Under Hadrian, the army began to lose its "Roman" character as it was reinforced by provincial non-citizens. This is juxtaposed with the similar process under Honorius, where the army's disintegration led to an increased reliance on barbarian federates.
These detailed dynastic and biographical alignments form a cornerstone of the 'New Chronology's' argument for a 330-year chronological duplication in Roman history.
3.0 Event Superimposition: The Trojan, Tarquinian, and Gothic Wars
This section deconstructs one of the theory's most complex claims: that three historically distinct conflicts are, in fact, phantom reflections of a single, seminal war that occurred in the Middle Ages (estimated c. XIII c. AD). The conflicts in question are the Trojan War (conventionally dated to the XIII c. BC), the Roman-Tarquinian War (VI c. BC), and the Gothic War (VI c. AD). The 'New Chronology' argues that despite their vast chronological separation in conventional history, these narratives share an identical underlying structure, protagonist archetypes, and key tactical events.
3.1 The "Legend of a Woman" as Casus Belli
A core element of this parallelism is the claim that each war was initiated by a "legend of a woman"—an offense against a high-status female figure that served as the catalyst for the conflict.
| Trojan War | Tarquinian War | Gothic War |
|---|---|---|
| Helen: The wife of King Menelaus of Sparta. Her abduction by the Trojan prince Paris ignites the war between the Greeks and Trojans. | Lucretia: A noble Roman matron, wife of Tarquin Collatine. Her rape by Sextus Tarquin, son of the king, leads to her suicide and the subsequent rebellion that overthrows the Roman monarchy. | Amalasuntha: The Gothic queen and regent of Italy. Her imprisonment and subsequent assassination by her co-ruler Theodahad provide the justification for the Byzantine Emperor Justinian to launch the Gothic War. |
3.2 Protagonist and Antagonist Parallelism
The theory further identifies key military leaders from each conflict as duplicates, arguing they perform identical narrative roles.
- Achilles (Trojan War) and Belisarius (Gothic War): Both are identified as the primary military heroes of the invading force (Greeks and Byzantines, respectively). A key parallel is the narrative of their alleged "treason" following a major victory. After defeating the Gothic king, Belisarius was offered the Italian crown, which led to accusations of treason and his temporary disgrace. This is compared to the story of Achilles's quarrel with Agamemnon and his withdrawal from battle, which is framed as a form of treason against the Greek cause.
- Hector (Trojan War) and Vittigis (Gothic War): These figures are presented as the primary defenders of the besieged city (Troy and Rome, respectively). Both lead the defense against the invading armies commanded by Achilles/Belisarius.
- Patroclus (Trojan War) and Junius Brutus (Tarquinian War): This parallel is based on a claimed etymological link and a similar fate. The unvocalized transcription of both names is presented as BRT. Both figures die in a duel that precedes a major cavalry battle, serving as a catalyst for the main hero's actions.
3.3 Tactical and Strategic Parallels
Beyond characters, the theory highlights specific tactical and strategic similarities that are presented as too precise to be coincidental.
- The most critical parallel is drawn between the famous "Trojan Horse" and the capture of Naples during the Gothic War. The 'New Chronology' argues that the story of the wooden horse is a mythological retelling of a real military tactic used by Belisarius's army. His soldiers infiltrated Naples by secretly entering an abandoned stone aqueduct outside the city walls. The source emphasizes the phonetic similarity in Latin between equa (horse) and aqua (water) as a possible origin for the mythological transformation of the story.
- A geographical superimposition is claimed between Troy and Constantinople/New Rome. The argument is that both cities are strategically located at the southern exit of a major strait—Troy at the Dardanelles and Constantinople at the Bosporus. This geographical similarity is used to suggest that the original conflict took place at Constantinople, and the "ancient" Trojan War is a displaced narrative of that event.
These deep structural similarities across three supposedly separate wars are presented as compelling evidence that multiple "ancient" histories are derivative of a single medieval original.
4.0 Biblical and European History: A Superimposition of Narratives
This section explores the 'New Chronology's' most extensive claim: that the historical narratives of the Old Testament are not accounts of the ancient Near East but are phantom duplicates of events from medieval European and Byzantine history. This reinterpretation repositions the Bible as a medieval text describing a European past, chronologically shifted backward by approximately 1800 years.
4.1 The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah vs. The Holy Roman Empire
The core of this assertion is a dynastic parallelism between the biblical kingdoms and major medieval European empires. The theory presents a nuanced thesis: the Kingdom of Israel (conventionally c. 922-724 BC) is claimed to be a chronological duplicate of the Roman coronations of the medieval Holy Roman Empire (c. X-XIII c. AD), while the Kingdom of Judah (c. 928-587 BC) duplicates the German coronations of the same Holy Roman Empire. The later Habsburg Empire (c. XIV-XVI c. AD) is then presented as the original for these biblical kingdoms.
This parallelism is argued to be demonstrated through the statistical correlation of "dynastic flows." This method, termed the analysis of 'dynastic flows,' involves comparing the sequence of rulers and their reign durations as recorded in the Biblical accounts with those of the medieval empires. After applying the appropriate chronological shift, the theory claims a strong, statistically significant alignment emerges, suggesting that the biblical and European dynastic histories are different versions of the same chronicle.
4.2 Key Narrative Parallels
To support the dynastic alignment, the 'New Chronology' identifies numerous narrative superimpositions between specific biblical stories and recorded medieval events.
- The Exodus from Egypt vs. The Gothic Retreat from Rome: The biblical narrative of the Israelites fleeing their oppressors is juxtaposed with the historical account of the Goths/Tarquins being defeated and retreating from Rome. The theory highlights a claimed etymological link based on unvocalized transcriptions between the title of the Pharaoh (TRN) and the Goths/Tarquins (TRQN). It claims the biblical version is the same story but with the roles of victor and vanquished reversed, presenting the retreat of the TRQN people as a triumphant escape.
- Joseph in Egypt vs. Odoacer and Theodoric: The biblical story of Joseph—a foreigner who rises to great power in Egypt but comes into conflict with his own people—is presented as a parallel to the history of Odoacer and Theodoric the Goth. Both Odoacer and Theodoric were Germanic leaders who rose to rule Italy (the claimed duplicate of biblical "Egypt") in the late Western Roman Empire, with their reigns marked by internal conflict and struggles for power.
- Joshua's Conquest vs. Charlemagne's Campaigns: The biblical account of Joshua's conquest of the Promised Land is identified as a duplicate of the narrative of Charlemagne's wars as described in the medieval epic The Song of Roland. The theory points to several parallel story elements, including the betrayal of the main cause by a trusted figure (the biblical Achan vs. Guenelun in the epic) and the miraculous event of the "sun standing still" to allow for victory in battle (Joshua 10:12-13), which is mirrored in the epic.
- Babylonian Captivity vs. Avignon Papacy: A direct identification is made between the biblical "Babylonian Captivity," during which the Judean elite were exiled to Babylon, and the historical "Avignon Captivity" of the Popes in the XIV century. The source notes that this parallel is not a modern invention, as medieval sources themselves referred to the Avignon period as the "Babylonian Captivity," directly linking the two events in the historical consciousness of the time.
These parallels are argued to collectively demonstrate that the Old Testament is not a history of the ancient Near East, but rather a medieval rendition of European events, recast in a theological framework and displaced into a distant past.
5.0 Classical Greece vs. Medieval Greece: The ~1800-Year Shift
This section examines the claimed parallelism between the history of Classical Greece and that of medieval Greece, specifically from the XI to XVI centuries. According to the 'New Chronology,' the entire history of the classical era is a phantom reflection of medieval events, created by applying a chronological shift of approximately 1800 years. This reinterpretation suggests that famous events and figures from ancient Greece are duplicates of lesser-known medieval counterparts.
5.1 The Peloponnesian War and its Medieval Original
A central claim in this parallelism is that the "ancient" Peloponnesian War, conventionally dated 431-404 BC, is a phantom duplicate of a medieval war fought in Greece between the Navarrans and Catalans from 1374 to 1387 AD. The theory posits that the core antagonists, key leaders, and ultimate outcome of both conflicts are identical once the 1800-year chronological shift is accounted for.
| "Ancient" Peloponnesian War (431-404 BC) | Medieval War in Greece (1374-1387 AD) |
|---|---|
| Primary Antagonists: The Athenian Empire vs. the Peloponnesian League, led by Sparta. | Primary Antagonists: The Catalan Duchy of Athens vs. the Navarrese Company and their ally, Nerio Acciaioli of Corinth. |
| Victorious Commander: The Spartan navarch Lysander emerges as the decisive military leader who secures final victory. | Victorious Commander: Nerio Acciaioli of Corinth leads the coalition that ultimately conquers the Catalan state. |
| Ultimate Outcome: The complete defeat and dissolution of the Athenian state and its replacement by Spartan hegemony. | Ultimate Outcome: The conquest of Athens and the end of the Catalan state in Greece, with power transferred to Nerio Acciaioli. |
5.2 Alexander the Great and the Ottoman Sultans
The 'New Chronology' reinterprets the figure of Alexander the Great not as a IV century BC Macedonian king but as a composite reflection of powerful Ottoman Sultans from the XV-XVI centuries AD, primarily Mohammed II "the Conqueror" and Suleiman the Magnificent.
The following points are presented as evidence for this identification:
- Iconography: Alexander is known in Oriental traditions as "Iscander the Bicorn" (the two-horned). The theory claims this title is a direct reference to the two horns of the Ottoman crescent, a primary symbol of the empire. Ancient coins depicting Alexander with horns are cited as evidence.
- Imperial Maps: It is asserted that maps of Alexander's empire and the Ottoman Empire are "strikingly similar" in their geographical scope, covering much of the same territory across the Balkans, Anatolia, the Levant, and Egypt.
- Capital City: A crucial link is the capital city. Alexander's empire and the Ottoman Empire both had their imperial center at Constantinople (renamed Istanbul by the Ottomans).
- Chronological Alignment: Applying a chronological shift of approximately 1810 years aligns the "ancient" Macedonian elevation (c. 350-320 BC) with the rise of the Ottoman Empire after the fall of Constantinople in the 1450s AD.
Based on these superimpositions, the 'New Chronology' reinterprets the entirety of Classical Greek history, from its wars to its most iconic figures, as a phantom duplicate of medieval events that took place nearly two millennia later.
6.0 Conclusion: Synthesis of Comparative Claims
This analysis has outlined the principal parallelisms that form the basis of the 'New Chronology' theory. The document has systematically presented the claims of dynastic superimposition in Roman history, the identification of three major wars as reflections of a single medieval conflict, the reinterpretation of biblical narratives as accounts of European history, and the recasting of Classical Greece as a phantom of its medieval counterpart. The core argument threaded through each of these comparisons is that a relatively small set of real medieval histories—such as those of the Holy Roman Empire, a XIII century Eurasian war, and the Ottoman Empire—were systematically duplicated, edited, and chronologically shifted by XVI-XVII century historiographers to create the vast and seemingly distinct expanse of "ancient history."
The source material grounds these comparative claims in what it presents as a scientific framework. This framework is primarily based on the independent astronomical re-dating of key ancient sources. The theory's proponents argue that their statistical analysis of Ptolemy's Almagest star catalog invalidates its conventional II century AD dating, concluding instead that its creation occurred in the interval between 600 AD and 1300 AD. This astronomical conclusion is presented as the foundational proof that necessitates a search for the parallelisms detailed herein, arguing it creates a chronological vacuum in antiquity that can only be explained by duplicated medieval histories.
This document has aimed to provide a consolidated, neutral reference of the 'New Chronology's' main comparative arguments. By structuring these complex and unorthodox claims in a clear and accessible format, it offers a foundational text for the purpose of further academic scrutiny and critical evaluation.