Chronology

Critique of Scaliger's chronology

There is a long tradition of doubt in the accuracy of today's accepted version. Let us name just a few of the scientists who criticised the chronology of Scaliger and Petavius and who thought that the true chronology of ancient times was fundamentally different.

De Arcilla – XVI century, the professor of the University of Salamanca. The information about his research is vague. It is only known that de Arcilla argued that 'ancient' history was invented in the Middle Ages [1v].

Isaac Newton (1643-1727) – the great English scientist, mathematician and physicist. He studied chronology for many years. Published a large manuscript 'The chronology of ancient kingdoms amended' [1v].

Jean Hardouin (1646-1729) – the important French scientist, the author of a great many manuscripts on philology, theology, history, archaeology and numismatics. The director of the French Royal Library. Wrote a number of books on chronology in which he strongly criticized the entire structure of the Scaligerian chronology. According to him the majority of the 'ancient monuments' were made significantly later or are even forgeries.

Petr Nikiforovich Krekshin (1684-1763) – personal secretary of Peter I the Great. He wrote a book in which he criticized the version of the Roman History recognised today. At the time of Krekshin it was still 'very fresh' and was not perceived as something obvious [4v2], ch.2:30.

Robert Baldauf – a German philologist of the second half of the XIX – early XX cc. Private docent at the University of Basel. The author of the book 'History and Criticism' in four volumes. Based on philological grounds, he came to the conclusion that the monuments of 'ancient' literature have much later origin than it is believed and were created in the Middle Ages [1v].

Edwin Johnson (1842-1901) – the English historian. In his work he strongly criticized the Scaligerian chronology. He believed that it should be significantly shortened [1v].

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854 – 1946) – outstanding Russian scientist-polymath. Created a breakthrough in research on chronology. Launched an extensive critique of Scaligerain chronology and history. Proposed the ideas of several new scientific methods of analysis of chronology [1v], ch.1.

Wilhelm Kammeyer (the end of the XIX century – 1959) German scientist and a lawyer. Developed methods to determine the authenticity of the old official documents. He discovered that almost all the classical and early Mediaeval Western-European documents were the later fakes or copies. Arrived at a conclusion about the falsification of the ancient and Mediaeval history. Wrote a number of books on this subject.

Immanuel Velikovsky (1895-1979) – Doctor- psychoanalyst. He was born in Russia and lived and worked in Russia, England, Palestine, Germany and the USA. He wrote a number of books on the subject of ancient history, where relying on the research conducted by N.A.Morozov (but not citing him anywhere) he pointed out some contradictions in the history. Attempted to explain them by using the 'theory of catastrophism'. In the West he is considered to be the founder of the critical school in chronology. However, fundamentally I.Velikovsky was trying to protect the Scaligerian chronology from too many major reconstructions. The fact that in Western Europe I.Velikovsky's work on history was known better than significantly earlier and more profound works by N.A.Morozov, impeded the development of the New Chronology in the West.

To summarise, the inconsistency of the Scaligerian chronology was clearly indicated by the scientists of the XVII-XIX cc. A thesis on the falsification of the classical texts and ancient monuments was formulated. But no one except N.A.Morozov could find a way to build the correct chronology. Even he failed in creating it. His version turned out to be half baked and inherited a number of significant errors of the chronology of Scaliger-Petavius.

The Tsar-Grad kingdom of the 11th-12th centuries and the Horde Empire of the 13th-14th centuries are the archetypes of all the main "ancient kingdoms" in the Scaligerian history

We discovered that the 'emperors of the Western-Roman Empire', i.e. the Habsburgs up until the XVI century turned out to be merely the phantom reflections of the Great Russian czars-khans who ruled until the end of the XVI century in Western Europe. All the Western-European rulers were the vassals of them in particular. Only after the victory of the Reformation the Western governors found themselves at the head of the independent states which formed in Europe (Germany, France, England, Spain, Italy, etc.).

Of course, it was impossible to completely wipe out the 'former' dependence from the Russian czars-khans. Noticeable traces remained in Western history purportedly as purely formal vassal dependence of all, or nearly all the Western rulers from the Habsburg, the Emperor of the Western Roman Empire. It is true though, that a certain oddity remained. This dependence which lasted several hundred years suddenly disappears in the XVII century without a trace. And this is understandable. The Austrian rulers were simply 'appointed' by the rebellious Western Europe of the XVI-XVII cc. to play the part of an old Imperial dynasty. Though in the XVII century the status of the Austrian Habsburg was no different from, let's say, the French or the English Kings.

The Habsburg of the XIV-XVI cc. was on the other hand the almighty Russian czar-khan ruling in Veliky Novgorod – Yaroslavl. He truly was the Emperor for all the governors – the kings and the dukes of the West. And not just formally – as it is presented today in the Scaligerian history of the Habsburgs – but the real sovereign of the single superpower. Only the late Habsburgs: from the late XVI to the early XVII cc. are the Western rulers of Austria. Which emerged as one of the splinters of the 'Mongol' Empire.

Russia-Horde of the XIV-XVI cc. and the Czar-Grad kingdom of the XI – the early XIII cc. are crucial for practically all 'ancient' Scaligerian history. Here is a list of the main phantom reflections of the Russian czars-khans of the 1276-1600.

1) The 'ancient' Russian history of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

2) The Habsburg Empire of 1273-1600.

3) The Holy Roman Empire of allegedly the X-XIII cc.

4) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Israel, according to the Bible.

5) The 'ancient' Kingdom of Judah, according to the Bible.

6) The Third Roman empire allegedly of the III-VI cc.

7) The Second Roman Empire allegedly of the I century BC – III century.

8) The Czar Rome = The First Roman empire allegedly of the VIII-VI cc. BC.

9) The 'Zero' Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 330-553 and the first half of the First Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 553-700.

10) The first half of the Byzantine Empire allegedly of the 830-980.

11) The first half of the Third Byzantine Empire allegedly of 1150- 1300.

12) The history of Mediaeval England allegedly of the 400-1327.

13) The Empire of the Carolingian Empire allegedly of the 680-890.

The proponents of today's accepted version of history react angrily to the evidence that many well-known 'classical' heroes were Russian. Or the'ancient' Et-Ruscan, i.e. once again Russian [5v]. The surviving facts are sorely received, facts which indicate that 'Ancient' Rome is actually Russia-Horde XIII-XVI cc. I.e. the 'ancient' Roman emperors were in fact the Russian-Horde czars-khans.

The cause of such an acute reaction is clear. After the collapse of the Great Russian-Horde Empire in Western Europe and some other former imperial provinces there formed a hostile and at the same time fearful attitude towards Russia. See the reasons for that above. The clearly surviving 'Russian footprint' in the Scaligerian history (surviving despite numerous attempts to 'cleanse' the documents) has been presently removed from scientific circles. The historians pretend that there is no 'Russian footprint' at all. But if somewhere such information still breaks through, they disregard it.