All history before 1000 A.D. has been faked according to Anatoly Fomenko. Professor(!!!) Fomenko's thesis is that what we now know as "accepted history" was forged in the 15th Century and re-arranged into the conventional chronology that we now accept in the same way that we accept the idea of gravity.
According to Wiki:
Fomenko's theory claims that the traditional chronology consists of four overlapping copies of the "true" chronology, shifted back in time by significant intervals (from 300 to 2000 years), with some further revisions. All events and characters conventionally dated earlier than 11th century are fictional, and represent "phantom reflections" of actual Middle Ages events and characters, brought about by intentional or accidental misdatings of historical documents. Before the invention of printing, accounts of the same events by different eyewitnesses were sometimes retold several times before being written down, then often went through multiple rounds of translating, copyediting, etc.; names were translated, mispronounced and misspelled to the point where they bore little resemblance to originals...
...Fomenko claims that the most probable prototype of the historical Jesus was Andronikos I Komnenos (allegedly AD1152 to 1185), the emperor of Byzantine; known for his failed reforms, his traits and deeds reflected in 'biographies' of many real and imaginary persons. The historical Jesus is a composite figure and reflection of the Old-Testament prophet Elisha (850-800 BC?), Pope Gregory VII (1020?-1085), Saint Basil of Caesarea (330-379), and even Li Yuanhao (also known as Emperor Jingzong or "Son of Heaven" - emperor of Western Xia, who reigned in 1032-1048), Euclides, Bacchus and Dionysius. Fomenko explains the seemingly vast differences in the 'alleged' biographies of these figures as resulting from difference in languages, points of view and timeframe of the authors of said accounts and biographies.
Fomenko also merges Jerusalem, Rome and Troy, contrary to the conventional history that places them in different locations of the ancient world separated by hundreds of years, and identifies them as: "New Rome" = Gospel Jerusalem (in the period 12-13 centuries) = Troy = Yoros Castle.[11] To the south of Yoros Castle is Joshua's Hill; (allegedly Gospel Calvary).[12]
The Biblical Temple of Solomon was not destroyed, says Fomenko - it is still known to us as the Hagia Sophia in Constantinople = Old Testament Jerusalem (in the period 14-16 centuries). The biblical Solomon himself is identified as sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1494-1566). The historical Jesus may have been born in 1152 and was crucified around 1185 AD on hill overlooking the Bosphorus.[13] The city that we now know as Jerusalem was known prior to the 17th century as the nondescript Palestinian village of Al-Quds.
On the other hand, according to Fomenko the word "Rome" is a placeholder and can signify any one of several different cities and kingdoms. The "First Rome" or "Ancient Rome" or "Mizraim" is an ancient Egyptian kingdom in the delta of the Nile with its capital in Alexandria. The second and most famous "New Rome" is Constantinople. The third "Rome" is constituted by three different cities: Constantinople (again), Rome in Italy, and Moscow (which Orthodox scholars have long named the third Rome). Rome in Italy was allegedly founded around 1380 AD by Aeneas. Moscow as the third Rome was the capital of the great "Russian Horde".[14] Similarly, the word "Jerusalem" is actually a placeholder rather than a physical location and can refer to different cities at different times and the word "Israel" did not define a state, even not a territory but people fighting for God, for example French St Louis and English called thelselves the King/Queen of Israel.
What a hoot! My mind hasn't been as disoriented about chronoloy since the time an Episcopalian friend of mine explained that the Church of England pre-existed and was always independent of the Catholic Church.
I can see this as the backdrop for a book by Umberto Ecco or Tim Powers.
This is definitely laughable, but not so very far from the world of the "Jesus Mythers" who inhabit their own dank swamp on the internet, and - very scary - Fomenko's book has sold millions of copies in Russia, and its fans include Gary Kasparov, presumably because of the paranoid anti-western view and the fabrication of a "Slavic-Turkish" Great Empire that controlled Western Europe. According to this article from Skeptic theorizes about Fomenko's popularity:
Well, that answer is quite simple. Fomenko is Russian, so it is not surprising that Fomenko "discovered" that Russia was the source of universal empire and that its culture gave rise to England. That explains his Byzantine chauvinism, for the Russian czars (= Caesars) saw themselves as the legitimate successors to the Byzantine emperors through the miracle of shared faith in the (then united) Orthodox Church. If England could be shown to "really" be Byzantium, then all the advances of England, and America, are "really" Byzantine and hence Russian. In other words, this elaborate theory is nothing more than an attempt to bolster the battered and broken shell of the formerly great Russian state, and to claim for Mother Russia a small piece of the reflected glory of a world that passed it by.
This line from the Skeptic article is revealing:
Following the publication of Fomenko's book in English his publisher, Delamere Resources Ltd, announced that it had received "innumerable venomous complaints with unprintable undertones."
No kidding. I've seen a number of debates between "Jesus Mythers" and normal people, and there is a point where the normal person obviously feels like throttling the Myther, or at least referring the Myther to a period of psychiatric observation.
This doctoral disseration (PDF!!) echoes the Skeptic article's obseration that Fomenko's popularity is political/cultural. It also points out that Fomenko's pseudo-history gives Russians a kind of historical claim to all land between the Pacific and the Atlantic and makes pro-Western moments like the establishment of the Romanov dynasty - when Western European nations "revolted" against the great Slavic-Turkish Empire - the villians of Russian history.
Bonkers, but fascinating.
Posts
4 comments:
Everyone i know who is interested in history is stunned by the ideas the Fomenko Group present. The idea that Ghengis Khan was the Turkic/Eastern name of a Russian prince is breathtaking in it's implications. Or, the case for "Mongolia" to have been a corruption of the Greek "Megalion"(or Great) representing a "Horde"(or "orde/order", the Russian name of it's Medieval professional horse-soldiers) as the historicists distortion of the Mongol Hordes as being of Far Eastern origin instead of being Russian Cossacks(Khazaks).
This book is so filled with shocking and exciting ideas about how history has been obfuscated, hidden, and changed to suit the local needs of political factions that it has completely altered my perspective on current worl events and the "how" and "why" of Central European and Middle Eastern politics! Many modern "historians" rail against Fomenko's theories because they are both obviouly, intuitively accurate and totally opposite established thinking that most history books would have to be completely re-written. And no one who spent ten years getting his doctorate in convential history wants to admit that everything he thinks he "knows" is just plain wrong! I know it upset me at first, but the long, long list of explanations, "coincidences", facts and inconsistencies listed by Fomenko et al can't help but change your perspective.
These books are not the usual poorly-written, poorly-researched imaginative tripe provided by most "historical revisionists". This is the work of one of the world's leading mathmeticians and other highly-educated scholars. In fact, there is so much raw data in this series that even i, who reads constantly, have a hard time moving through it. But the subject matter shakes the very foundations of so many assumptions of modern history that it's worth every bit of effort.
Don't let the convcentional history proponents convince you these are false- read them for yourself. If you can read the whole series and STILL think the history of the world is what you've been taught then you might be right, and i might be wrong. But i don't think i am: Fomenko is a pioneer, a radical, a free-thinker and revolutionary in the field of scientific historical anhalysis!
I read the tract he put on the internet a few years ago, which was, to paraphrase a reviewer, as much of an attack on the English language as it was on English history. It seemed bonkers at the time, but when it came out in English, I dutifully bought the book. I have since read it cover to cover. It is a well-written and seemingly well researched book that deserves, in my humble opinion, a more thoughtful rebuttal from historians. The problem with such a rebuttal, of course, is where to start. It seems that Fomenko is calling historians to return to first principles. What are the primary sources of the consensus view of chronology? The problem is, I believe, that the study of history has become so fragmented that is quite difficult to reconstruct our base of knowledge.
It would be an interesting read, the rediscovery of first principles. Even to take a small piece of Fomenko's theory (the history of England may be a good place to start) and trace back exactly what we know and how exactly we know it would be interesting pop history. I wonder if we would be surprised to find out how difficult it is to justify our present beliefs about the past.
Fomenko is probably more accurate than canonical history, even if he got many things wrong. It is a fact that prior to the 14th century our history becomes blurred with mythology. Even as little as 100 years ago, the bible was taken as an actual historical account. With all the archaeology discoveries since, the bible doesn't look like it could possibly fit the Middle East. Even if the chronology seems Russia or Near East-centric, it is a fact that area (and central Asia) played a huge role historically that has been long forgotten.
Google Catalan Atlas, a 13th/14th century map of Jewish trade routes. The Jews and the Muslims were best buds, contrary to mid-20th century revisionist alterations to paint the Palestinians as irrational haters for religious reasons. They shared an empire and were elite among the Moors and Turks. The Star of David is the seal of Solomon, a Jewish dynastic and elite bloodline that notorious Turk Barbarossa was part of. Look at the flags in Anatolia if you don't believe it.
The reason people ridicule the chronology is because they think canonical history is our history. The media writes our history today. The Internet can debunk this new 'history' in minutes. Not talking kook stuff either, the. Jessica Lynch story from the Iraq war is a good example. If they can't get our modern day history right, we don't know much about history other than what biased elites wrote. Our ancestors were illiterate mostly and so many died in the dark ages and so many discoveries by archaeology are puzzling, nobody really knows
Post a Comment