Historical Events Database - History

[Zadig]

Re: Historical Events Database

Laura, I need your opinion on a point:

As you see, I'm currently on the 9th century, and I can't explain the fact that between c.825 (after the revolt of Thomas the Slav and the birth of the Amorian Dynasty) and c.860 (the end of the Amorian and the birth of the Macedonian Dynasty with Basil) there is almost no report of earth changes by Byzantine chroniclers. And we know that it was a busy century in the West.

But the big problem is: there is no report of the Halley's comet of 837:

In 837, Halley's Comet may have passed as close as 0.03 AU (3.2 million miles; 5.1 million kilometers) from Earth, by far its closest approach. Its tail may have stretched 60 degrees across the sky. It was recorded by astronomers in China, Japan, Germany and the greater Middle East. In 912, Halley is recorded in the Annals of Ulster, which state "A dark and rainy year. A comet appeared."

But in Constantinople nothing.

Doomsday (Almost) in the Ninth Century
Paul Farquharson
The very close approach of Halley’s Comet to Earth in March-April AD 837, and the exceedingly brilliant supernova seen in the constellation of Taurus for 12 months from July of AD 1054, were the two outstanding celestial events of their age. Both events are entirely absent from historical literature west of the Euphrates (i.e Constantinople), but were carefully noted by East Asian observers. The only ready explanation for the omission of both events in the West is that they significantly exceeded the limits of the cosmology of the day.

Furthermore, I’m not aware of severe environmental stress in Asia Minor, like in Asia after the event of 773 explaining the gap of c. 40 years in Asian records of comets.

Do you have any idea why there is such a gap ?

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

Oh boy, that's another good one you found! Looks to me like another "generation" was added to give distance to events.

Remember the Gregory of Tours gap? And the 21 year gap in the Chinese comet records?

What we are going to do when we finish entering stuff (assuming that day ever comes) is that we are going to USE Halley's as our dating marker. I've already done some pencilled figuring in my copy of Cometography and it actually works.

Then, I think we are going to have to slide Gregory of Tours back a generation and probably your gap will slide back too. We'll lock them into place with Halley's. I think this might get rid of a lot of doublets.

So, for the moment, we don't worry about it. It will show up in the graphs and we'll be able to maneuver things once we have a fuller picture.

Forgot to mention: don't forget to always put Halley's in the keywords so I can find all of them when the time comes. That will tell us how many years we have to lop off of each segment of time.

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

What we are going to do when we finish entering stuff (assuming that day ever comes) is that we are going to USE Halley's as our dating marker. I've already done some pencilled figuring in my copy of Cometography and it actually works.

That's interestingly just what I was thinking when I was working on this yesterday afternoon. When I have a chance I'm going to go back and proofread to make sure we've got it in the keywords in the appropriate places.

I also had the thought that given its period, it might be some kind of a "feedback" probe that the cosmos uses to test conditions of the Earth (and elsewhere?) which informs the behavior of cometary swarms that eventually occur on longer cycles. I have no idea how much validity there could be to that, but given the association between comets and plasma/electricity, and between that and how information is organized and communicated, I thought it might be a possibility.

 

[Zadig]

Re: Historical Events Database

Remember the Gregory of Tours gap? And the 21 year gap in the Chinese comet records?

Yes, I remember. There is another complication with this period, because Thomas the Slav (his wide-scale revolt against Michael II the Amorian was in 821-823) claimed to be the emperor Constantine VI (780-797), who had been deposed by Irene of Athens (797-802 - the empress who wanted to be the bride of Charlemagne).

Two different accounts of Thomas's life are recounted in both Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus. According to the first account, Thomas first appeared in 803 accompanying general Bardanes Tourkos, and pursued a military career until launching his revolt in late 820. In the second version, he came to Constantinople as a poor youth and entered the service of a man with the high court rank of patrikios. Then, discovered trying to commit adultery with his master's wife, Thomas fled to the Arabs in Syria, where he remained for 25 years.

Pretending to be the murdered emperor Constantine VI (r. 780–797), he then led an Arab-sponsored invasion of Asia Minor, but was defeated and punished.[4][6] Classical and Byzantine scholar J.B. Bury tried to reconcile the two narratives, placing Thomas's flight to the Abbasid Caliphate at around 788 and then having him return to Byzantine service before 803,[7] while the Russian scholar Alexander Vasiliev interpreted the sources as implying that Thomas fled to the Caliphate at Constantine VI's deposition in 797, and that his participation in Bardanes's revolt must be discounted entirely.[8] The second version of Thomas's story is explicitly preferred by Genesios and Theophanes Continuatus, and is the only one recorded in 9th century sources, namely the chronicle of George the Monk and the Life of Saints David, Symeon, and George of Lesbos.

Nevertheless, the French Byzantinist Paul Lemerle came to consider it an unreliable later tradition created by Michael II to discredit Thomas, and rejected it altogether, preferring to rely on the first account alone. Most modern scholars follow him in this interpretation.[4][9]

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

I will take care of the rest asap.Thank you for your clarification, Laura.

There are some entries, which describes the same in the same year but are from different historic sources:
examples:
entry 820 = entry 1233
entry 821 = entry 1232
entry 822 = entry 1230

Could you please check if I should keep the additional entry?

Dirgni, I don't think you're aware that Kronk's dates are offset from Yeomans' by one year. I'm taking a look right now, and it looks like there are multiple duplicate entries because you assumed they were different years (i.e Kronk lists an event in 83 BC where Yeomans lists the same event in 84 BC). I'm going to merge these as I'm able, but you need to be aware of this going forward so that you know how to align the two sources.

 

[Dirgni]

Re: Historical Events Database

Dirgni, I don't think you're aware that Kronk's dates are offset from Yeomans' by one year. I'm taking a look right now, and it looks like there are multiple duplicate entries because you assumed they were different years (i.e Kronk lists an event in 83 BC where Yeomans lists the same event in 84 BC). I'm going to merge these as I'm able, but you need to be aware of this going forward so that you know how to align the two sources.

Thank you very much, Shijing. I promised to take care of the Yeoman / Kronk doubles and my Kronk / Kronk doubles asap; I will do 1st century BC first. I am sorry about this.

Which year should be taken - I assume Yeoman's? If there is no Yeoman date I will take Kronk date if not advised otherwise.

 

[Zadius Sky]

Re: Historical Events Database

So, anybody, do not make entries from Gregory of Tours. He's done. Do not make entries that are sourced to Paul the Deacon; he's done. I'm working Pliny the Elder right now and soon he will be done. Then I will do Procopius unless someone else has started on him by then.

I already added five entries from Procopius' History of the War so far a while ago, but had to stop due to priorities that came up. I'm already done with Zosmius but still had Procopius and Ammianus on the list to go through. You can do Procopius and I can focus on Ammianus. I'm still reading Forsythe's A Critical History of Early Rome and other historiographies.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

So, anybody, do not make entries from Gregory of Tours. He's done. Do not make entries that are sourced to Paul the Deacon; he's done. I'm working Pliny the Elder right now and soon he will be done. Then I will do Procopius unless someone else has started on him by then.

I already added five entries from Procopius' History of the War so far a while ago, but had to stop due to priorities that came up. I'm already done with Zosmius but still had Procopius and Ammianus on the list to go through. You can do Procopius and I can focus on Ammianus. I'm still reading Forsythe's A Critical History of Early Rome and other historiographies.

Excellent book. I'll keep an eye on dates/events so I don't double anything.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

Dirgni, I don't think you're aware that Kronk's dates are offset from Yeomans' by one year. I'm taking a look right now, and it looks like there are multiple duplicate entries because you assumed they were different years (i.e Kronk lists an event in 83 BC where Yeomans lists the same event in 84 BC). I'm going to merge these as I'm able, but you need to be aware of this going forward so that you know how to align the two sources.

Thank you very much, Shijing. I promised to take care of the Yeoman / Kronk doubles and my Kronk / Kronk doubles asap; I will do 1st century BC first. I am sorry about this.

Which year should be taken - I assume Yeoman's? If there is no Yeoman date I will take Kronk date if not advised otherwise.

If the entry is already from Yeoman's book, leave his date but add 1 year uncertainty and then put the entry from Kronk below the quote from Yeoman's pointing out the difference in dating in the notes. Also, if it triggers any thoughts, or you notice something, just write a note about it in the notes box.

If the entry is already by Kronk, then just leave it. It appears that Kronk used Yeoman's book and improved on it.

As for the Halley dating, what we are going to assume is that Halley IS actually, regular. I think I wrote something about it further back or maybe it was just in my head to do so.

I'm also thinking about all the Clovises and Theuderberts and Meroveches and so forth and I think that this whole history of the Franks has been doubled; that is, a generation that actually did not exist has been put in and all the doings that are reported by Gregory actually belong a generation earlier.

The problem, as Zadig highlights with his 9th century issues, is that different people at different times had different (but similar) agendas and were diddling with history and trying to make their fairy tales match up to the fairy tales of other groups. If you really want to see this in action, just read the Apocalypse by Pseudo-Methodius and the Alexandrian World Chronicle. My god, I was having conniptions while reading that nonsense. I mean, those guys just MADE SH*T UP! What is interesting is that it is thought that both of these total BS chronicles were written in Constantinople during the reign of Justinian (or seriously redacted then) and GIFTED to Theuderbert as a sort of "diplomatic manipulation". Thing is, I didn't find any traces of this total nonsense in Gregory of Tours. The chronicle actually includes a "Francus Silvius" in the line of legendary Roman kings, the idea being that 1) it might inspire Theudebert to think of the Byzantines as "kin" so he would ally with them or 2) it was to save face since the Western Empire was being lost to the Franks, at least they were still "Roman". Can you beat that nonsense?

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database


On the topic of thunderbolts.

In our database, under "CELESTIAL", we have "plasma events" and "strange sounds". After reading Pierre's exposition of Electric Universe theory, I'm inclined to think that plasma events and strange sounds should go into ENVIRONMENT because they take place within the magnetic field/atmosphere of the Earth and very often they can be related to earthquakes within the Earth.

Thunderbolts are also a type of plasma event that take place within/between charges within the Earth's atmosphere so we could do: ENVIRONMENT -> Type: Plasma event -> keyword: thunderbolt.

So, Plasma events and strange sounds should be moved and Data can do it in one action.

Next: we have under CELESTIAL two types: Fire in the Sky and Falling Fire. I think we should remove Fire in the Sky and that can be listed as a keyword under Plasma Events under Environment. We can then leave Falling Fire for Fireballs and Meteors (keywords) and remove the Type "Meteors/Meteorites" which only ends up getting repeated in keywords.

This will help us to better categorize things and to think of things in tree-like classifications.

 

[panca kanga]

Re: Historical Events Database

Dirgni, I don't think you're aware that Kronk's dates are offset from Yeomans' by one year. I'm taking a look right now, and it looks like there are multiple duplicate entries because you assumed they were different years (i.e Kronk lists an event in 83 BC where Yeomans lists the same event in 84 BC). I'm going to merge these as I'm able, but you need to be aware of this going forward so that you know how to align the two sources.

Thank you very much, Shijing. I promised to take care of the Yeoman / Kronk doubles and my Kronk / Kronk doubles asap; I will do 1st century BC first. I am sorry about this.

Which year should be taken - I assume Yeoman's? If there is no Yeoman date I will take Kronk date if not advised otherwise.

Is the reason for Kronk being out by one year because he is using the Astronomical Julian Calendar rather than the civil version?
Astronomers add a leap year between AD 1 and BC 1 and number it 0. Something to help their calculations I suppose.


In a wiki on zero BC they write:

In astronomy, the numbering of all years labeled Anno Domini remain unchanged. However, the numerical value of years labeled Before Christ are reduced by one by the insertion of a year 0 before 1 AD. Thus, astronomical BC years and historical BC years are not equivalent. To avoid this confusion, modern astronomers label years as positive or negative, instead of BC or AD.

I suppose that if Kronk has written "BC" then he really is referencing the civil calendar and the two dates are out, otherwise they are the same year referenced by the different conventions.

 

[Mikey]

Re: Historical Events Database

So, Plasma events and strange sounds should be moved and Data can do it in one action.

Moved to category "Environment" - done.

I think we should remove Fire in the Sky and that can be listed as a keyword under Plasma Events under Environment.

There are 35 entries with type "Fire in the Sky" and not all of them are plasma events, e.g. there are "bolides", "fireball", "meteor shower" etc. in the keywords. I'll leave them for now for manual re-classification.

We can then leave Falling Fire for Fireballs and Meteors (keywords) and remove the Type "Meteors/Meteorites" which only ends up getting repeated in keywords.

I'll wait with the moving until the reclassification has been done.

 

[shijing]

Re: Historical Events Database

If the entry is already from Yeoman's book, leave his date but add 1 year uncertainty and then put the entry from Kronk below the quote from Yeoman's pointing out the difference in dating in the notes. Also, if it triggers any thoughts, or you notice something, just write a note about it in the notes box.

If the entry is already by Kronk, then just leave it. It appears that Kronk used Yeoman's book and improved on it.

I'd changed Yeomans' dates to Kronk's in the overlapping entries I'd worked on, but I'll go back today and reverse that, and annotate it in the way you've described above.

Since it's a fast rule that Kronk's dating is always offset from Yeomans' by one year, maybe we should consistently mark the one year uncertainty in the case of the Yeomans (and Archaeoastromony) entries which aren't duplicated by Kronk to try to make everything as consistent as possible?

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

If the entry is already from Yeoman's book, leave his date but add 1 year uncertainty and then put the entry from Kronk below the quote from Yeoman's pointing out the difference in dating in the notes. Also, if it triggers any thoughts, or you notice something, just write a note about it in the notes box.

If the entry is already by Kronk, then just leave it. It appears that Kronk used Yeoman's book and improved on it.

I'd changed Yeomans' dates to Kronk's in the overlapping entries I'd worked on, but I'll go back today and reverse that, and annotate it in the way you've described above.

Since it's a fast rule that Kronk's dating is always offset from Yeomans' by one year, maybe we should consistently mark the one year uncertainty in the case of the Yeomans (and Archaeoastromony) entries which aren't duplicated by Kronk to try to make everything as consistent as possible?

Well, maybe we should do just what you had initially done: change to Kronk's date for the entry, note the 1 year possible variation, and put note in that Kronk's dating is used. Might make it easier in the long run.

 

[Dirgni]

Re: Historical Events Database

Zadig, there are entries from "Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard's Histories" you included. Are they from this source _http://www.amazon.com/Carolingian-Chronicles-Frankish-Histories-Paperbacks/dp/0472061860/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1396348796&sr=8-1&keywords=Carolingian+Chronicles or a quite similar source?

Maybe you should consider to add more content at source part to make it easier to identify the source (Also for later assembly of a bibliography and to avoid copyright questions)?

I am doing "The Annals of Fulda: Ninth-Century Histories, Volume II" and "The Annals of St-Bertin: Ninth-Century Histories, Volume I", which include the same year at least in the beginning as "Carolingian Chronicles". I use Francia, West Francia, East Francia, (Middle Francia) for the Frankish Kingdoms in the ninth century (please refer to _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francia). You take France, Germany and sometimes Carolingian empire for location past, which did not exist during that time as far as I know. Maybe we should use the same names for the location to make it more consistent?

Just some remarks from my side. :)

Dirgni, I don't think you're aware that Kronk's dates are offset from Yeomans' by one year. I'm taking a look right now, and it looks like there are multiple duplicate entries because you assumed they were different years (i.e Kronk lists an event in 83 BC where Yeomans lists the same event in 84 BC). I'm going to merge these as I'm able, but you need to be aware of this going forward so that you know how to align the two sources.

Thank you very much, Shijing. I promised to take care of the Yeoman / Kronk doubles and my Kronk / Kronk doubles asap; I will do 1st century BC first. I am sorry about this.

Which year should be taken - I assume Yeoman's? If there is no Yeoman date I will take Kronk date if not advised otherwise.

@Laura and Shijing: I removed my duplicates and updated appropriate events (107, 122, 123, 205, 209, 212, 213, 217, 219, 222, 225, 902, 896, 899, 900, 901, 905, 924).
There are still some of my entries left.