Historical Events Database - History

[Palinurus]

Re: Historical Events Database

Palinurus, regarding Josephus, it really sounds like he's a dud. I've got one entry from him that I put in today and it's in 71 AD - Fall of Jerusalem. Open it and read and the related entry that is noted. Notice that Titus refused to take credit for the Fall of Jerusalem. Well, how interesting is that? Maybe he was telling the truth: he didn't do it, the "Wrath of God" did.

Anyway, if there is anything big or important in Josephus, note it, but otherwise, just stick to any environmental mentions.

Thank you for your prompt reaction, Laura.

I've read your new entry and noticed it corresponds fairly well with the version wikipedia gives of those events. However, I have a problem with you dating it in 71 AD, as the consensus seems to be that this happened in 70 AD. See this table, for instance. Maybe you could reconsider the date; I didn't edit anything there for now.

That Titus refused credit, is also mentioned by Josephus but in less outright clarity than your source has. Josephus's emphasis is on the fact that Titus specifically and repeatedly ordered the temple to be spared but that his soldiers in the heat of battle ignored those commands, so that Titus didn't deserve any personal blame for its destruction. According to Josephus it has to be considered as an act of God in retaliation for the evil deeds of the Jewish occupying factions against each other, against the holiness of the temple, and against the trapped population at large. In his version Titus was only the instrument God used to get His way and the main culprits were the Jewish rebels themselves who invoked His wrath by their own sins.

I will go through the whole work once more like I already had planned to do, taking large steps this time as in some editions all chapters have an abstract summary of their content, to make sure that I will file all relevant content per your latest recommendations but nothing more than that.

 

[seek10]

Re: Historical Events Database

It just occurred to me that if these barbarians are invented mostly, somebody may have been having a really good laugh inventing "long haired Franks" and Longobards to take the place of Hairy stars and Bearded stars. I bet they thought they were incredibly clever.

After reading Dio's liberal usage of word 'barbarians' to any body whom with romans are fighting with either in north (europe) or south(africans) or east ( asians, parthians) , even while describing roman acts( of plunder, murder, burning, killing children, wiping out every thing) to so called barbarians, It sounded like he meant 'enemy' rather than some body doing barbaric. Of course Dio is roman senator and governor, probably he can't got that far. While describing the certain physical/spiritual disciplinary practices followed by celts, gauls, he used word barbarian while not giving any description of barbarianism. probably they are modern day beard wearing paper rocket firing Muslim terrorists.

 

[seek10]

Re: Historical Events Database

Thanks seek10. No, you can leave paragraph numbers and such. Sometimes it helps.

If we want use paragraph no, we have put Dio's Book number too. Shall I put the Book number in the Notes section ?

We just need to think about it this way: Suppose we just dump the whole database to the printer in chronological order: would a reader who does NOT have a whole lot of historical knowledge be able to read each entry and know what's going on? That's why it is sometimes necessary to put in some background historical info in the notes.

Thank you for the explanation. I will cross check the information and add some text and some formatting too.

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Re: Historical Events Database

It just occurred to me that if these barbarians are invented mostly, somebody may have been having a really good laugh inventing "long haired Franks" and Longobards to take the place of Hairy stars and Bearded stars. I bet they thought they were incredibly clever.

After reading Dio's liberal usage of word 'barbarians' to any body whom with romans are fighting with either in north (europe) or south(africans) or east ( asians, parthians) , even while describing roman acts( of plunder, murder, burning, killing children, wiping out every thing) to so called barbarians, It sounded like he meant 'enemy' rather than some body doing barbaric. Of course Dio is roman senator and governor, probably he can't got that far. While describing the certain physical/spiritual disciplinary practices followed by celts, gauls, he used word barbarian while not giving any description of barbarianism. probably they are modern day beard wearing paper rocket firing Muslim terrorists.

For the Romans, anyone who wasn't a Roman was a barbarian, basically like calling them 'foreigners'.

 

[seek10]

Re: Historical Events Database

It just occurred to me that if these barbarians are invented mostly, somebody may have been having a really good laugh inventing "long haired Franks" and Longobards to take the place of Hairy stars and Bearded stars. I bet they thought they were incredibly clever.

After reading Dio's liberal usage of word 'barbarians' to any body whom with romans are fighting with either in north (europe) or south(africans) or east ( asians, parthians) , even while describing roman acts( of plunder, murder, burning, killing children, wiping out every thing) to so called barbarians, It sounded like he meant 'enemy' rather than some body doing barbaric. Of course Dio is roman senator and governor, probably he can't got that far. While describing the certain physical/spiritual disciplinary practices followed by celts, gauls, he used word barbarian while not giving any description of barbarianism. probably they are modern day beard wearing paper rocket firing Muslim terrorists.

Sorry, Dio was not senator, a consul and his father was a senator.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

I've read your new entry and noticed it corresponds fairly well with the version wikipedia gives of those events. However, I have a problem with you dating it in 71 AD, as the consensus seems to be that this happened in 70 AD. See this table, for instance. Maybe you could reconsider the date; I didn't edit anything there for now.

The only reason I did was because of the Chinese comet dating. If Josephus and others (Tacitus) want to insist on the comet, then the event has to align with the dating of the comet of the time which was 71. Only other comets in the period were in 66 and then later in 75. However, that and everything else is probably going to be redated when I put my Halley's Comet dating method into operation.

 

[Martina]

Re: Historical Events Database

HI!
I'm a bit in a hurry so I didn't read the topic, it will take me a while to do so :).
I need some information about Hallstatt period, if there was some catastrophic event like Velikovsky said,
could you recommend me some book or article about it? Thanks

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

HI!
I'm a bit in a hurry so I didn't read the topic, it will take me a while to do so :).
I need some information about Hallstatt period, if there was some catastrophic event like Velikovsky said,
could you recommend me some book or article about it? Thanks

Sorry, you'll have to do your own searching for that. This thread is a discussion among those working on a particular database probject.

 

[Alana]

Re: Historical Events Database

seek10,

You have made entry # 1612 which is the same comet as entry 253.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! when you make an entry, SORT BY DATE AND MAKE SURE YOU AREN'T DOING A DUPE!

Ok, I see that I have at a dupe, entry 1627. It's the same comet mentioned by Zadig in entry 1519 seen from a different part of the world. Do I delete mine and add the text under his text, with my source at the end? And transfer my comments below his comments too?

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

seek10,

You have made entry # 1612 which is the same comet as entry 253.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! when you make an entry, SORT BY DATE AND MAKE SURE YOU AREN'T DOING A DUPE!

Ok, I see that I have at a dupe, entry 1627. It's the same comet mentioned by Zadig in entry 1519 seen from a different part of the world. Do I delete mine and add the text under his text, with my source at the end? And transfer my comments below his comments too?

Exactly.


Also, seek10, you've got another dupe: yours #1612 is a duplicate of 253. Just add your quote into the quote box, put the source in parentheses at the end, and transfer any notes to the note box. Then delete your duplicate entry.

 

[Alana]

Re: Historical Events Database

seek10,

You have made entry # 1612 which is the same comet as entry 253.

PLEASE! PLEASE! PLEASE! when you make an entry, SORT BY DATE AND MAKE SURE YOU AREN'T DOING A DUPE!

Ok, I see that I have at a dupe, entry 1627. It's the same comet mentioned by Zadig in entry 1519 seen from a different part of the world. Do I delete mine and add the text under his text, with my source at the end? And transfer my comments below his comments too?

Exactly.

Done. But now I see that zadiusky has the same event in entry 500. What a mess. I'll merge them.

I also merged the 898 AD earthquake, now they are under entry 1520.

I find more as I go along, which I'll merge: (Zadig, I'll merge them under your entries, because Leo the Deacon doesn't seem such a good source as John Skylitzes.)

Entry 1698 is about the same 989 AD Halley's comet that I have in entry 1630.
Entry 1516 is the same earthquake outside Byzantium in 967 AD as in my entry 1404.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

Thanks Alana for merging stuff. Just be careful and examine things closely.

I just did some merging too in the year 744 as a result of trying to date a problematical passage in Paul the Deacon that I had left out earlier because there didn't seem to be any way to date it. After perusing Kronk's book, I realized that his citation of Theophanes and Agapius and others pointed to the right year and so I sorted by year and found the right elements. There was a comet entry from Theophanes and a comet entry from Kronk (both by Zadig) and it was the same comet sort of... understandable why they were entered separately. I copied and pasted all the stuff from the various entries in that year into a doc so I could study it and I realized that I was looking at the description of a Tunguska like event only described by various witnesses from different positions. So, I merged the Kronk/Theophanes comet entries, and created a new one for the Vesuvian eruption reported by Paul, and created a new one for the Tunguska-like event combining all the sources.

What seems to have happened is that a comet appeared in January, then there was the Tunguska-like event in February that produced the earthquake at the Caspian Gates. This was followed by an ash veil. Then, a bit later, there was an eruption of Vesuvius, though it may have been small, but it added to the already existent ash veil.

Here are the clues:

Theophanes:

In this year a sign appeared in the north and in some places dust fell down from heaven.

There was also an earthquake at the Caspian Gates.

Oualid (Walid II d. 16 April 744) was killed by the Arabs on 16 April, a Thursday, after a reign of one year, and power was seized by Izid the Defective.

Agapius, Universal History:

"The same year, in the month of Kanoun II (January), there appeared another sign in the shape of the moon; and the atmosphere was dull and dark.

(...)

There appeared in the sky a fire which flamed.

Yazid died ( Yazid III d. 25 September 744), after reigning five months, and his brother Ibrahim succeeded him. "

Zuqnin, Chronique de Denys de Tell-Maré, quatrième partie, 1895, p.46

"The first Friday of January, the stars fell from the sky and we saw them like globes of fire running everywhere. They foretold the calamities that came later on the earth: the sword, plague and the Persian invasion."

Paul the Deacon, History of the Lombards:

At this time between Christmas and Epiphany there appeared at night in a clear sky a star near the Pleiades shaded in every way as when the moon stands behind a cloud. Afterwards in the month of February at noon-day there arose a star in the west which set with a great flash in the direction of the east. Then in the month of March there was an eruption of Bebius (Vesuvius) for some days and all green things growing round about were exterminated by its dust and ashes.

Just a note: The Zuqnin Chronicle and others should have their titles rendered into the English versions in the event we need to search for something or assemble all the entries derived from a particular source. It won't be helpful if we do a database sort and half the entries are lost because the title is rendered in French.

 

[Zadig]

Re: Historical Events Database

(Zadig, I'll merge them under your entries, because Leo the Deacon doesn't seem such a good source as John Skylitzes.)

I think it's better to merge Skylitzes under Leo the Deacon, because Leo is earlier and the source of Skylitzes.

I just did some merging too in the year 744 as a result of trying to date a problematical passage in Paul the Deacon that I had left out earlier because there didn't seem to be any way to date it. After perusing Kronk's book, I realized that his citation of Theophanes and Agapius and others pointed to the right year and so I sorted by year and found the right elements. There was a comet entry from Theophanes and a comet entry from Kronk (both by Zadig) and it was the same comet sort of... understandable why they were entered separately. I copied and pasted all the stuff from the various entries in that year into a doc so I could study it and I realized that I was looking at the description of a Tunguska like event only described by various witnesses from different positions. So, I merged the Kronk/Theophanes comet entries, and created a new one for the Vesuvian eruption reported by Paul, and created a new one for the Tunguska-like event combining all the sources.

And what Paul says about the year 749?

Because, the problem is to know if it was a single event in 744 or 749, or multiple events.

Ambraseys sums up the problem, see entry 1077:

Considerable confusion surrounds the dating of earthquakes in the Middle East during the middle of the VIIIth c., a period during which a series of major earthquakes occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean region and in the Middle East.

On 26 October 740 a large earthquake on the eastern coast of Marmara Sea caused widespread damage in Constantinople.

In 743, there was an earthquake in the Yemen, and in 744 there was another large earthquake in Iran.

Then on 18 January, between 746 and 749, there followed what modern writers consider to be a major earthquake in the Jordan Valley the effects of which extended over an enormous area from Egypt across to Turkey and from the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River in Iraq.

Finally, in 763, there was another destructive earthquake in Khorassan.

The question we ask here is that of whether the earthquake of 18 January 746-749 was responsible for all the effects described in the sources, or whether these effects could have been cumulative from more than one event occurring months or years apart with different epicenters in Syria and Palestine.

If the historical sources do indeed refer to a single earthquake, such an event should have been of unprecedented magnitude and deserves reappraisal insofar as it would affect the earthquake hazard in the region.
Information on the effects of earthquakes during this period is available from Byzantine, Syrian, Arabic and Jewish sources.

 

[Laura]

Re: Historical Events Database

(Zadig, I'll merge them under your entries, because Leo the Deacon doesn't seem such a good source as John Skylitzes.)

I think it's better to merge Skylitzes under Leo the Deacon, because Leo is earlier and the source of Skylitzes.

Exactly. If possible, go with the earliest source.

I just did some merging too in the year 744 as a result of trying to date a problematical passage in Paul the Deacon that I had left out earlier because there didn't seem to be any way to date it. After perusing Kronk's book, I realized that his citation of Theophanes and Agapius and others pointed to the right year and so I sorted by year and found the right elements. There was a comet entry from Theophanes and a comet entry from Kronk (both by Zadig) and it was the same comet sort of... understandable why they were entered separately. I copied and pasted all the stuff from the various entries in that year into a doc so I could study it and I realized that I was looking at the description of a Tunguska like event only described by various witnesses from different positions. So, I merged the Kronk/Theophanes comet entries, and created a new one for the Vesuvian eruption reported by Paul, and created a new one for the Tunguska-like event combining all the sources.

And what Paul says about the year 749?

Because, the problem is to know if it was a single event in 744 or 749, or multiple events.

Ambraseys sums up the problem, see entry 1077:

Considerable confusion surrounds the dating of earthquakes in the Middle East during the middle of the VIIIth c., a period during which a series of major earthquakes occurred in the Eastern Mediterranean region and in the Middle East.

On 26 October 740 a large earthquake on the eastern coast of Marmara Sea caused widespread damage in Constantinople.

In 743, there was an earthquake in the Yemen, and in 744 there was another large earthquake in Iran.

Then on 18 January, between 746 and 749, there followed what modern writers consider to be a major earthquake in the Jordan Valley the effects of which extended over an enormous area from Egypt across to Turkey and from the eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River in Iraq.

Finally, in 763, there was another destructive earthquake in Khorassan.

The question we ask here is that of whether the earthquake of 18 January 746-749 was responsible for all the effects described in the sources, or whether these effects could have been cumulative from more than one event occurring months or years apart with different epicenters in Syria and Palestine.

If the historical sources do indeed refer to a single earthquake, such an event should have been of unprecedented magnitude and deserves reappraisal insofar as it would affect the earthquake hazard in the region.
Information on the effects of earthquakes during this period is available from Byzantine, Syrian, Arabic and Jewish sources.

Yes, I noticed that issue and wrote a note in entry 1081 - that it might be a dupe. In fact, there's a whole raft of things in 749 that look like dupes. Since there are no Chinese/Korean reports of comets in 749, I'm inclined to think that the whole mess at least BEGAN in 744. BUT, as Nur points out, once there is one earthquake (which could be caused by a celestial event), then a whole series of earthquakes can happen due to "unzipping" of a fault. And one fault can lead to another. So it is not impossible that there was all this other stuff going on in 749 due to those reasons. It is interesting that 749 reports dust veil too, though. But some things could be explained by confusing events over time.

It's a tricky time. I wasn't even aware that there was so much going on at that point until I started trying to find a placement for the PtD event.

 

[Palinurus]

Re: Historical Events Database

I've read your new entry and noticed it corresponds fairly well with the version wikipedia gives of those events. However, I have a problem with you dating it in 71 AD, as the consensus seems to be that this happened in 70 AD. See this table, for instance. Maybe you could reconsider the date; I didn't edit anything there for now.

The only reason I did was because of the Chinese comet dating. If Josephus and others (Tacitus) want to insist on the comet, then the event has to align with the dating of the comet of the time which was 71. Only other comets in the period were in 66 and then later in 75. However, that and everything else is probably going to be redated when I put my Halley's Comet dating method into operation.

Laura, I am afraid I cannot quite follow your reasoning on this one but that could entirely be my misunderstanding. Let me try to recap the situation.

In my post here I gave a list of portents and prodigies which Josephus mentioned as preceding the outbreak of the rebellion and the subsequent war. You answered:

Take a look in Cometography at the entry for 60 AD "X/60 P-1". That seems to be the best fit. At the end of his discussion, he notes that Pingre dated this comet to 62 AD, so you have a couple of years of play there. Note also your own calculations:

Albinus was procurator from 62-64 AD, so adding "seven years and five months" brings us right into the heart of the War period. The War started in 66 AD and "four years before the war began" would give 62 AD also.

I've put this comet in as entry 244. Shijing added entries for the earthquakes and continuous storms: #s: 1405, 1406.

What seems to me is that Josephus is dressing up his "history" using a number of borrowed elements. So, I would put the whole passage in one entry, "portents of destruction of Jerusalem" as the associating keywords, date it to 62 with a couple years +/-, and most of your comments above in the notes. Also, put in the above entry numbers as being probably associated.

I followed your instructions and made entry ID 1710 for 62 AD (give or take a few years) with the heading of Comet which was the main thing. It's still in the database with a note added about the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now you have made entry ID 1807 for 71 AD with the heading of Mass Death and a note added about the fall of Jerusalem, and you start off with the same list of prodigies and portents that I filed for 62 AD without even mentioning a duplicate.

And in the meantime you switched comets: the one I filed was in 62 AD and the one you filed was in 71 AD but we both based our entry mainly on the same quote from Josephus.

Obviously, my question is whether the initial quote from Josephus:

"289 Thus there was a star resembling a sword, which stood over the city, and a comet, that continued a whole year.

has now been reinterpreted as pertaining to two different celestial phenomena in two different years?

When such is the case then at least there needs to be added proper cross referencing IMO. If not, the entries have to be merged because of duplicate or my 62 AD entry could expire completely.

Please take a closer look and resolve my confusion if possible.