Was "Gallic wars" a text similar to the Odyssey - so, describing the Younger Dryas cataclysms?

[palestine]

The author draws a parallel with the Gallic war and Greek Troy:

A. T. Fomenko
"Empirico-Statistical Analysis of Narrative Material and its Applications to Historical Dating"
Volume II

http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/123456789/3238/1/A.T. Fomenko.pdf

Hector - Wikipedia

In Greek mythology, Hector (/ˈhɛktər/; Ἕκτωρ, Hektōr, pronounced [héktɔːr]) was a Trojan prince, a hero, and the greatest warrior for Troy during the Trojan War. He is a major character in Homer's Iliad, where he leads the Trojans and their allies in the defense of Troy, killing countless Greek warriors. He is ultimately killed in single combat by the Greek hero Achilles, who proceeds to drag his dead body around the city of Troy behind his chariot.

 

[palestine]

The literature about (and from) Caesar is quite extensive as well as the literature about (and from) the time and places Caesar lived/operated. So, before proposing ideas like this, I think it would be a good idea to get a firm grasp of that literature and what it likely is suggesting and how that would square with an idea of that kind.

I‘ve read a number of books on the subject, which are by far not all the material one could read about it, but from that preliminary view on the subject the idea you have presented so far seems pretty unlikely.

Thing is that if comets condition mankind... If there is an angle, with some flags, I see it as a potential road.

You seem to indicate that one must firstly first "tap" into the Roman database, in terms of literature, and archeology (if I understand it right - I am not sure). Those will always say the same things - and it will go into the direction of today's consensus. At worse, "Caesar the imperialist". That's what those sources show and it's difficult to get out of it. Still, C's show a very different Caesar.

I would agree with the idea of gathering all sources and data possible - but the literature is kind of monolithic - and it's like a deep dive into a stable sea. Romans, roads, battles, amphitheaters, roman columns, etc. My idea will never fit with such data.

I am of course pondering the idea that Caesar did make all those battles & fights. This will be difficult to defend; I just saw something, and did not want to let an idea slip. When grossly checking about it, i cannot say that "there is nothing". But I am cautious, so thank you for your bold take :)

but from that preliminary view on the subject the idea you have presented so far seems pretty unlikely.

But why, exactly?

Thank you!

 

[Gaby]

But why, exactly?

Thank you!

How much of the recommended reading have you done? Did you at least read Laura's books and Pierre's books?

 

[palestine]

How much of the recommended reading have you done? Did you at least read Laura's books and Pierre's books?

Hmm yes many of their books.

I understand that... My question was not appropriate, isn't it? I feel I should not have asked.

If I may: this was simply a request for clarification, in the sense of "something more precise".

Cosmos tells me "there are huge bodies of literature" - "I've read many of those books" - "It is unlikely that ...".

And so, he makes a bridge towards the label "it is unlikely".

What's that bridge? Could this be formulated?

 

[Liliea]

I can suggest that you read:

From Paul to Mark: PaleoChristianity : Knight-Jadczyk, Laura: Amazon.de: Books

From Paul to Mark: PaleoChristianity : Knight-Jadczyk, Laura: Amazon.de: Books

www.amazon.de

That way, if you want, you could better plan your line of research.

 

[Ruth]

Hmm yes many of their books.

I understand that... My question was not appropriate, isn't it? I feel I should not have asked.

If I may: this was simply a request for clarification, in the sense of "something more precise".

Cosmos tells me "there are huge bodies of literature" - "I've read many of those books" - "It is unlikely that ...".

And so, he makes a bridge towards the label "it is unlikely".

What's that bridge? Could this be formulated?

Maybe you need to do a timeline? I think this is what most researchers are trying to do, but some of the conclusions they come to are incorrect because they are based on assumptions, fitting the wrong facts together, at the wrong time, or an incorrect starting point to begin with. This means that a even how they fit facts together may be incorrect. Of course we know this is a big problem within the scientific and historical community. That is why they have such difficulty 'connecting the dots' and coming to new, maybe startling conclusions. It makes them very uncomfortable.

A couple of examples discussed on the forum are: The real location of Troy - which is NOT in the Mediterranean; Venus as a comet which hasn't been there that long (less than 5000 years) and the Egyptian pyramids as being some sort of energy storage device (or an attempt at building something like that) and NOT a tomb.

It seems to me that you are trying to conflate something that happened in Caesars time with something that (most likely) happened in the past, and may have happened multiple times, as well! Is that because the author you mention is doing the same? There may be hundreds of years, even millenia separating similar events. This is the frustration that people have when wanting to research history.

I think what Cosmos is trying to tell you is that regarding Ceasars time, there is a lot of documentation. Which means a lot of data points. Before trying to connect them to other data points, you need to know if Ceasars time is the correct time to start. Most people think it isn't. This is the problem. Certain things happened multipe times in the past. These being, but are not limited to:

1. Cometary bombardments
2. Plagues
3. Conflicts/wars
4. Venus passes.

It looks like no. 4 is the only one that's no longer happening and to further complicate matters when it DID happen it had the capacity to influence and may have even influenced the other 3 in some ways.

If you have an idea, or a theory about something, then the foundation of that has to be sound and reliable. Caesars time is not the right foundation, neither is the idea that The Odyssey happened in the Mediterranian. That's just my take. This will lead to a situation where a person can be "barking up the wrong tree", especially if they started with the wrong foundational assumption.

 

[palestine]

Thanks @Ruth for your post - and your honest takes

I feel I need to clarify this thread and its motion

some of the conclusions they come to are incorrect because they are based on assumptions, fitting the wrong facts together

A guy thinks of something, then he builds up a model, according to what he thinks - firmly convinced that he's right.

This is not exactly my case.

The "assumption", "biased", "let's rush to conclusion" model is a STS loop / trap.

I think that I would be more on the line of "it's the sign of an educated man to entertain an idea without ... etc". Just having a thought, an idea, and seeing where this leads to.

It seems to me that you are trying to conflate something that happened in Caesars time with something that (most likely) happened in the past

Hmmm my point is that the Gallic war would be a text narrating the succession of past cataclysms.

So it's not a conflation, but a conscious choice, on my part, to explore a road.

I am NOT "conflating something that happened during Caesar's time with another period": I am consciously casting a doubt on several written traces, and checking if there is anything... An exercise.

The difference is that if my idea is wrong, I would have lost time. But the thinking brain remains intact.

And so it becomes "hey guys, I saw that...".

But the idea does not seem to get any popularity :) I attach importance to this. I will see.

Before trying to connect them to other data points, you need to know if Ceasars time is the correct time to start.

This is not needed, if you study the matter on a conceptual basis: "comets" or events, in the text, matching. A basic "stone = comet".

Caesars time is not the right foundation

The time factor is absent in my considerations. I am exploring this angle but it's far from being the matter. I am studying the chronology of the battles, but again this is not representative of the matter.

neither is the idea that The Odyssey happened in the Mediterranian

Is this what you understand from my posts?

Thank you @Ruth. I understand that my idea does not appear that attractive when people read about it. I am okay with this. I hope that there is something of value. I appreciate the different topics that the members are studying. I am studying Caesar, as for myself! Extensive studies of it allows me to see that "there may be something here".

 

[palestine]

It looks like no. 4 is the only one that's no longer happening and to further complicate matters when it DID happen it had the capacity to influence and may have even influenced the other 3 in some ways.

From what I understand:

periodic	pseudo-periodic	aperiodic events (one shot events)
the comet cluster orbiting around the sun - 3600 years
the brown dwarf, period of 27 mio years
		when a too high level of corruption appears, the homeostasy kicks in, and sends a comet, with a plague (anthropocosmic connection)
	Venus

In addition:

- Plagues can appear in all the cases
- The Oort cloud sends rocks when a body goes through it

Hope this is correct.

That's what I understood so far. But the big plagues seem to be relating to the anthropocosmic connection. If C's control the influx of comets here on the planet - the incursion of plagues (the big ones) may be under strict supervision. I would attach the plagues to the anthropocosmic case - rather than an ever-phenomenon (each comet > big plague).

That's because plagues have a specific function / role.

Saying, because your model includes plagues as a matter seemingly as important than "a comet impacting" - but I believe that plagues can benefit from precision in terms of their apparition. I.e. it's restricted to specific circumstances.

Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle

It suggests that the 3,600 year cycle is only one of the cometary cycles that subjects our planet to periodical catastrophes. For example, Venus, when it was a comet, probably induced cyclical catastrophes too.

On top of that, there are also "aperiodic" comets, the ones who will approach the Earth only once. This is probably the case of the 12,800 BP event.

The Seven Destructive Earth Passes of Comet Venus

Cometary events can be ongoing or a thing of past. Likewise they can be periodic, pseudo-periodic or a one-shot event.

For example, we know of ongoing periodic cometary cycles like the 27.9 million year cycle followed by Nemesis and its accompanying cometary swarm (see chapter 13 to 19 of Earth Changes and The Human-Cosmic Connection) or the ongoing 3,600 year cometary cycle described in my article 'Volcanoes, Earthquakes And The 3,600 Year Comet Cycle'.

There are also ongoing pseudo-periodic cycles like Comet Halley, whose average period is 77 years, but whose single periods span from 74.33 years to 79 years.

There are one-shot events like the 12,900 BP cometary event described in my article 'Of Flash Frozen Mammoths and Cosmic Catastrophes'.

And finally there are past pseudo-periodic comets like cometary Venus from 5,200 BP to 4,600 BP with decreasing orbital period: from 160 years for pass 1 to 60 years for pass 7.

 

[axj]

Hmmm my point is that the Gallic war would be a text narrating the succession of past cataclysms.

So it's not a conflation, but a conscious choice, on my part, to explore a road.

Is there a good reason to explore this theory? If not, you are indeed most likely wasting your time. Why would the Roman report of Caesar's battles in Gaul be a narration of much more ancient cataclysms, instead of simply the battles Caesar engaged in?

It seems that the only reason you entertain this idea is because of some superficial similarity between the map of Caesar's battles and one of many different maps of the Odyssey. The one you chose in the Mediterranean does not account for the high likelyhood that the Odyssey did not describe the Mediterranean at all - even in the ancient world people noted that the distances given between known locations made no sense, etc.

 

[palestine]

Is there a good reason to explore this theory?

yes

If not, you are indeed most likely wasting your time.

I raised this issue in my post. That's a risk in researching

Why would the Roman report of Caesar's battles in Gaul be a narration of much more ancient cataclysms, instead of simply the battles Caesar engaged in?

Atlantis, big civ., present during dozens of thousands of years - right prior to Caesar. A civ. with so advanced tech. Big karmic bonds for all & everybody, up to today.

> Could be that Caesar was eager to provide some takes, ideas, hints, etc.

After all, his reign lasted - what - a man's existence? 50 - 80 years? Right before, we got a civilization which conditioned all & everything. From people, up to "aliens", STO, STS motions, land masses, continents.

Not far from Caesar, the Younger Dryas, the last "reform" of Atlantis.

It seems that the only reason you entertain this idea is because of some superficial similarity between the map of Caesar's battles and one of many different maps of the Odyssey. The one you chose in the Mediterranean does not account for the high likelyhood that the Odyssey did not describe the Mediterranean at all

If you read my posts you would be able to find out the interesting elements.

- The Gallic war is an endless succession of peaky fights against whatever barbarian incursions. It's a military treatise, and it's an endless description of "How I defeated enemy X". The culmination is a rooster fight between Vercingetorix and Caesar. Thanks to the C's and the research here, we were able to link Caesar with Christ. How does this match this gross endless rampaging-pillaging-executions narratives? Not that much.

- Main historical texts suffer from "tampering". In addition, some have secret teachings inside. In-between, we would havee a main text - pristine, not tampered with? An exception? Not that long before Caesar, we got the Odyssey, narrating the Younger Dryas events. The world changed, at the time. Caesar was not far from it. If we consider the big & real (critical) motions for mankind, 10000 years are not that much. Why wouldn't Caesar's text be an additional expression of those truths?

- C's sessions mention that "there haven't been Cilician pirates". How far, may I ask, does this go? Or, how far could this go? Only Cilician pirates was a forgery? Much? I let you ponder the potential of such matter. From a single problem, towards a huge discrepancy. We simply don't know, so we could lay down a potential basic scenario: much never existed as such. This is an objective way of working.

- Caesar went to the Netherlands, and Britain - where comet hit during Younger Dryas.

Etc.

It seems that the only reason you entertain this idea is because of some superficial similarity between the map of Caesar's battles and one of many different maps of the Odyssey

Oh really?

 

[axj]

Not far from Caesar, the Younger Dryas, the last "reform" of Atlantis.

The Younger Dryas (12000 years ago) is almost as far from us as from Caesar (2000 years ago). If the phantom years theory is correct, he lived only about 1600 years ago.

The final Venus cataclysm ("Exodus cataclysm") was closer to Caesar's time, around 2300 BC according to the C's. That seems more likely to have been remembered by the Romans, maybe through the Greeks.

Though is there any indication at all that Caesar knew and talked about ancient cataclysms?

The Gallic war is an endless succession of peaky fights against whatever barbarian incursions. It's a military treatise, and it's an endless description of "How I defeated enemy X".

Since the Gallic Wars book was published shortly after Caesar's death, many who experienced the Gallic wars were still alive. If the battles described in the book were made up, it would have been called out as a work of fiction.

Caesar went to the Netherlands, and Britain - where comet hit during Younger Dryas.

That is speculation, not a fact. It is quite well-established that North America was hit by at least one comet or fragment of a comet, probably in the ice shield. Where exactly other comets or fragments hit we do not know, only the general area spanning from Northern Europe to the Near East and to northern South America.

 

[palestine]

Though is there any indication at all that Caesar knew and talked about ancient cataclysms?

That's a good question. I am not specifically using the idea that Caesar would be talking about the events at 10850 BCE

He could, indeed, be talking about other times (more recent ones)

Since the Gallic Wars book was published shortly after Caesar's death, many who experienced the Gallic wars were still alive. If the battles described in the book were made up, it would have been called out as a work of fiction.

To me, "no Cilician pirates" is technically enough to cast doubt on every single event/battle.

That is speculation, not a fact. It is quite well-established that North America was hit by at least one comet or fragment of a comet, probably in the ice shield. Where exactly other comets or fragments hit we do not know, only the general area spanning from Northern Europe to the Near East and to northern South America.

I base myself from R. Firestone's findings - quoted by Pierre in his book. The following illustration shows the impact you are referring to:

One arrows shows Finland. Eh! What am I to do with this? "No impact in Finland & North USA only"?

There is this map, too:

That's more or less where Caesar once went to.

So I was very puzzled. You see - when I stumble upon those small flags, I take note of it. And then, I check my notes.

In addition to the above two maps, R. Firestone provided the following maps:

We could expand on the European Younger Dryas

 

[axj]

That's a good question. I am not specifically using the idea that Caesar would be talking about the events at 10850 BCE

That seems to be what you have been talking about so far. And you seem to have no indication at all that Caesar knew or talked about ancient cataclysms. Which suggests that you have no real basis for your theory.

To me, "no Cilician pirates" is technically enough to cast doubt on every single event/battle.

Caesar did not talk or write about being captured by pirates. That was written by others like Plutarch who lived many decades after Caesar's death. This pirate story has nothing to do with what Caesar wrote himself about the Gallic wars.

I base myself from R. Firestone's findings - quoted by Pierre in his book. The following illustration shows the impact you are referring to:

One arrows shows Finland. Eh! What am I to do with this? "No impact in Finland & North USA only"?

Firestone and others identified impacts in North America with a high degree of certainty based on the orientation of the Carolina Bays, pointing to the original impact location in the Great Lakes region or Canada. He presents other possible Younger Dryas impact craters in his book, including in Finland and even Bolivia.

But neither Firestone's research nor the subsequent research by the Comet Research Group looking into the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis have identified for sure any YD impacts outside of North America. It is possible that some of those were airbursts that did not leave a crater.

 

[palestine]

That seems to be what you have been talking about so far. And you seem to have no indication at all that Caesar knew or talked about ancient cataclysms. Which suggests that you have no real basis for your theory.

That Caesar was specifically speaking about the Younger Dryas events appeared to be the most relevant hypothesis. I don't believe that I discarded other events in my post, did I?

And you seem to have no indication at all that Caesar knew or talked about ancient cataclysms

I see; you would expect Homer to tell you that Odysseus was a fictional character and that the book is about the comets during the YD?

Which suggests that you have no real basis for your theory.

I would remain cautious about such bold takes. I have been expressively avoiding this kind of situation in my study. But - look, if you care, if you personally would like to go "there is no real basis for this theory" - no problem at all.

You seem to require a bold statement, by Caesar himself, that he wrote a book about comets - and not a book about him battling barbarians. Difficult to get! Meanwhile, I reserve myself the right to explore this avenue.

If you prefer to tap into the main stream Roman database, feel free - you will make findings. Meanwhile, me, I will tell myself that whichever text can be tampered with (and can be a possible account of YD comets).

C method - questioning, checking, double-checking, triple-checking. That's good for the brain.

Atlantis won't disappear like that, it seems, isn't it?

Caesar did not talk or write about being captured by pirates. That was written by others like Plutarch who lived many decades after Caesar's death. This pirate story has nothing to do with what Caesar wrote himself about the Gallic wars.

I did not know that it was referring to Plutarch. Let's not extend the phenomenon of forgery, present in Plutarch, to the Gallic Wars, then.

We can still say that "historical accounts about Caesar are not accurate; while they depict battles". This generalization still works.

The matter is that Plutarch does not deviate that much, in fact, from the Gallic war... Battles, etc... Same style.

When checking about the Plutarch pirate episode, this is what the C's said:

A: Caesar was on another kind of adventure of the scientific kind.

Q: (Pierre) Can you elaborate on this "scientific kind" of adventure?

A: Short travels with his teacher, Posidonius.

This indicate that Caesar was traveling for "scientific purposes". When the teacher dies, what does the pupil do? I suppose that he would pursue his teacher's work.

But neither Firestone's research nor the subsequent research by the Comet Research Group looking into the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis have identified for sure any YD impacts outside of North America. It is possible that some of those were airbursts that did not leave a crater.

The material, that he found out, in Europe, has the same composition than the ones he found in the US.

Airburst or comet crashing is another matter. It does not invalidate that this material remains included in "the Younger Dryas layer", right? So this would provide validity for all European sites.

 

[palestine]

But neither Firestone's research nor the subsequent research by the Comet Research Group looking into the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis have identified for sure any YD impacts outside of North America. It is possible that some of those were airbursts that did not leave a crater.

What's super wrong with AI is that too many people use it for STS purposes. "What's wrong in this statement/idea" - rather than "what corroborates this idea". Not good.

In addition, the fact that one has to tell the AI "... and don't lie", shows that the stuff is so wrong that a basic C discipline implies to stay away from that stuff. Querying something that basically lies?! An STO spiritual framework would forbid to use such thing.

I don't know if you used AI but it looks like one of those formatted answers that the AI usually provides. If the case, let's cut the conversation please.