Were concomitant reigns eventually reinterpreted into sequential reigns? If so, it could account for some "extra" centuries.
Were 460 years added to the official chronology?
- Thread starter Pierre
- Start date
Yes, was there not some minting of coin and forgeries well cited in history - Charlemagne coinages speaks of mint rollouts, and why not stamp out a few emperor coins along the way to help fill historical gaps, protect usurpers and generally muddy the waters.
Laura's FPtM showed many group and individual parallels, overlaps and separation - and outright inventions, so yes, more than likely.
Nostradamus
The Force is Strong With This One
In a similar way, archaeologists had discovered 2 coins of the emperor Domitian (called Domitian II by convention to distinguish him from the other emperor Domitian). The first coin was discovered in France in 1900 and was initially considered a fake. Then, a second coin was discovered in Oxfordshire in 2003. He is now considered a Gallic usurper for a short period around the year 271. Like the emperor Sponsian, the existence of these characters is only possible thanks to the chance discovery of a few rare coins. There are other examples of the same kind. One can imagine that other "unknown" emperors are likely to be identified.
Indeed, it is not that these emperors are fictitious but that the chronological sequencing is misleading. It also seems to me that it might be necessary to distinguish the status of "Augustus" and emperor, which are confused by historians. It seems that at a certain point, the Empire no longer had an Augustus (or else several simultaneous Augustuses), that is to say a supreme commander who directed the whole Empire. The centralization of power in Rome was shaken and the distribution of power was regionalized in a chaotic way.
Before the establishment of the tetrarchy and the reign of Constantine, there is indeed a huge historical "void" and one can hypothesize that many emperors lived simultaneously and that some later decided to mask this period of disorder and anarchy in order to create a linear and legitimate sequence of power transmission. However, I have never really been able to determine where the simultaneity begins and ends. In fact, we can perceive a "chronological dilation", especially in view of the lack of material evidence, but surprisingly we are unable to separate the true from the false in written history. Each hypothesis systematically meets insurmountable problems...
Moreover, even the official history does not really hide the disorder of the Empire with this endless succession of emperors and usurpers who kill each other. Thus, the exact motive of the fraud seems to me sometimes elusive...
BHelmet
The Living Force
To me, the focus on “was this 460 year addition true” is less interesting than the ramifications of what was the catalyst for that 460 year glitch and what followed after.
Was it just ignorance, was it just forgotten and miss-figured in the aftermath or actually an intentional obfuscation?
if the plague of Justinian was an effect of a cataclysmic reset of some sort and signified the end of the Roman Empire, then what of our blurred history after that?”
How and with whose help did humanity rebuild? The histories and narratives of the dark ages into the renaissance are perhaps more sketchy than the last few hundred years of Roman history. If so, why? What is missing or added afterwards?
I love it when the narrative goes something like “the development of the wheel then naturally led to the Ferrari.” Or from the Black Death to Caravaggio and Chaucer. Quite the turnaround without a lot of transitional detail as I recall my study of history.
I realize this is a vector away from the thread title but it flows directly from conjecture assuming “if true, then what?”
Was it just ignorance, was it just forgotten and miss-figured in the aftermath or actually an intentional obfuscation?
if the plague of Justinian was an effect of a cataclysmic reset of some sort and signified the end of the Roman Empire, then what of our blurred history after that?”
How and with whose help did humanity rebuild? The histories and narratives of the dark ages into the renaissance are perhaps more sketchy than the last few hundred years of Roman history. If so, why? What is missing or added afterwards?
I love it when the narrative goes something like “the development of the wheel then naturally led to the Ferrari.” Or from the Black Death to Caravaggio and Chaucer. Quite the turnaround without a lot of transitional detail as I recall my study of history.
I realize this is a vector away from the thread title but it flows directly from conjecture assuming “if true, then what?”
Myeong In
The Force is Strong With This One
The historical sequence will be a big mysteries if the addition of years is true.
From the death of Caesar to the AD 536 cataclysm is roughly 100 years but @Nostradamus suggests that there are well dcomented histories until Maracus Aurelius son , who was born after 230 years Caesar death. The statue of Commodus still looks complex compare to the later Roman period (wiki). Would it mean that Roman Empire was still in sort of good shape after the cataclysm for more than 100 years until they got hit by another one?
Sometimes I was thinking if the cataclysm during Justinian is really happened in AD 536. At least I find another date (AD 564) for the cataclysm from a transcript that only appeared in the article of Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols Part 4
As we know later on for some reasons, the Roman make a new capital in Constantinople, where they set up Senate and also carry on the Cura Annonae (the free bread welfare) just as it was in Rome. In the later time the Roman only survive in the East. It is interesting that Cs said Justinian I was the last Roman Emperor but we know that the Roman Empire continued as what we now called Byzantine Empire. Their neighbor at that time also called them Roman. Historian from Byzantine time did have record about their history, which is preserved in Codex Mutinensis graecus 122. You can find a list of Roman Emperors with portraits there. The list is almost identical with the modern wiki list ( List of Roman Emperors ) without the late Western Roman Emperors.
The latest session also has an interesting comment about the Roman period.
From the death of Caesar to the AD 536 cataclysm is roughly 100 years but @Nostradamus suggests that there are well dcomented histories until Maracus Aurelius son , who was born after 230 years Caesar death. The statue of Commodus still looks complex compare to the later Roman period (wiki). Would it mean that Roman Empire was still in sort of good shape after the cataclysm for more than 100 years until they got hit by another one?
Sometimes I was thinking if the cataclysm during Justinian is really happened in AD 536. At least I find another date (AD 564) for the cataclysm from a transcript that only appeared in the article of Jupiter, Nostradamus, Edgar Cayce, and the Return of the Mongols Part 4
100 years after Caesar will be the reign of Nero. 130 years after Caesar will be the reign of Domitian.
As we know later on for some reasons, the Roman make a new capital in Constantinople, where they set up Senate and also carry on the Cura Annonae (the free bread welfare) just as it was in Rome. In the later time the Roman only survive in the East. It is interesting that Cs said Justinian I was the last Roman Emperor but we know that the Roman Empire continued as what we now called Byzantine Empire. Their neighbor at that time also called them Roman. Historian from Byzantine time did have record about their history, which is preserved in Codex Mutinensis graecus 122. You can find a list of Roman Emperors with portraits there. The list is almost identical with the modern wiki list ( List of Roman Emperors ) without the late Western Roman Emperors.
The latest session also has an interesting comment about the Roman period.
Thanks for brining this up, had forgotten about that excerpt of the transcripts. The cometary event and volcanic eruptions that led to widespread devastation in Europe in 536 AD are well documented, but not much is said about 564 AD. Assuming there wasn't much of a civilisation left in Europe at the time, it's no surprise though.
I had a look at the historical records and found a few mentions of a comet appearing around 563-566 AD. Astronomer Pingré lists the following in his Cométographie p.322 (translated from French, added sources in square brackets):
The * is Pingré's way of saying that the comet observed and assigned to that year is most likely the same comet observed in another year and wrongly dated. In this case, he is associating the 563 comet with the ones observed later. The one recorded in 566 by Gregorio Abul-Pharajio is itself likely to have been observed first in 565 since Marius of Avenches states that it appeared the same year that Justinian died, the year having started 1 September 565. It's possible that all 3 records, including the one from the Chinese report first observed in August 565 describe the same cometary event which lasted between a couple of moths and a year. Yeomans lists the 565 comet from Chinese records as one of the great comets in history.
The confusion regarding the year described by Gregory of Tours likely stems from the section in which he describes a series of events spanning ca. 563-571 without giving dates, which recounts some very interesting portents, including a tsunami triggered by a massive landslide near Lake Geneva (dated 563), "multiple suns" and a comet lasting a whole year which preceded the plague that killed a substantial part of the population in many French towns (dated 571).
Looking at temperature reconstruction from tree rings, one notices a marked drop in temperature in 566 which substantiates the remark made in Pingré's entry about the comet appearing towards the Arctic pole.
In summary, it does look like a large comet was seen in 565-566 AD, although with all the portents happening at the time, one cannot exclude a cometary explosion the year before too as some records may have been confounded with time. It sure wasn't a pleasant time to live in.
Last edited:
Jtucker
Jedi Master
As mkrnhr posted above, Gunnar Heinsohn's work sheds quite a bit of light on these missing years. I think I missed that author's work until it was posted in the Procopius, "Secret History" thread, but wow does it have some fascinating observations in its pages.
As Laura mentioned in SHOTW and FPTM, there are doublets in the New and Old Testaments that show interpolations and overlays. Gunnar Heishon has found the same thing between Justinian and Diocletian as well as Domitian.
The same Persian/Parthian emperor shows up with the same name (Khosrow) centuries apart - and multiple times!
From GH:
There is almost nothing known about the 2nd/3rd c. Narses of the Severans. The Khosrow of the same period would be completely
unknown if he hadn't left coins. But even these coins are doubtful. They could also belong to a Khosrow (89-128 CE) of the time of
the Roman emperors from Domitian (81-96 CE) to Hadrian (117-138 CE).
If the coins of the Severan Khosrow belong to the Khosrow of the 1st/2nd century, the question arises whether the sources about the
Severan Khosrow were used up for the Khosrow of Justinian. The emperor would then have taken over not only the jurists, but also
the Persian opponents of the Severans. If the Khosrow of the Severans is none other than the Khosrow of Justinian his coins should
differ from those of the 1st/2nd c. Khosrow. The complications do not end here because the Severan Khosrow resembling Justinian’s Khosrow (531-579 CE) also resembled the Khosrow (591-628 CE) in the time of Mauricius (582-602 CE), Focas (602-610 CE), and Heraclius (610-641).
I think this is some telling evidence. The same named Parthian emperor is used over and over again - with the exact same coins?
I think it was in SHOTW that Laura suspected that the destruction of Rome's infrastructure couldn't have been done by mere "barbarians" and that something more extreme was going on.
From GH:
Both rulers (Diocletian and Justinian) are connected to events in Rome. There, however, no apartments, kitchens, latrines, water pipes or roads were built between the 230s CE and the 930s CE (Heinsohn 2018b). From a stratigraphic point of view, therefore, all events placed in Rome that are textbook dated between the 230s and the 930s CE must be followed by a question mark. Personalities and deeds from this
period must be accommodated in such a way that they can be linked to the unquestionable period in which Rome was alive and
building. All narratives and persons which are now distributed over 930 years must be accommodated within just 230 to 240 years.
As mentioned in earlier posts in this thread - coins are key. I think this section from GH defines the issue very well:
Chronological overlaps that indicate simultaneity do not exist only within Late Antiquity (e.g. between Anastasius and Justinian or
between Justinian and Heraclius etc.). They range from the 2nd to the beginning of the 10th century CE. The coin finds of Raqqa, for
example, which stratigraphically belongs to the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century), also contain imperial Roman coins from
Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) and Late Antiquity (4th-7th century). Coins of Roman Emperors found in 8th-10th c. CE strata of Raqqa
that disappeared under sand in the 930s CE (Heidemann 2008).
Archaeologists are particularly confident of correctly dating finds from 1st millennium excavation sites when they find coins
associated with them. A coin-dated layer is considered to be of utmost scientific precision. But how do scholars know the dates of
the coins? From coin catalogues!
How do the authors of these catalogues know how to date the coins? Not according to archaeological strata, but from the lists of Roman emperors. But how are the emperors dated and then sorted into these lists? Nobody knows for sure. One may know well established sequences of imperial dynasties (Julio-Claudians, Flavians, Antonines, Severans etc.), that can
also be confirmed stratigraphically. But nobody knows a stratigraphy in which the coins of the West Roman and East Roman emperors of the one thousand years of the 1st millennium are found in superimposed layers.
Since the excavators – seduced by the seemingly hundred percent certainty of the coin dates – trust these more than their own stratigraphic findings, they conclude from coins of – for example – the “2”nd as well as the “5”th century in one and the same settlement layer that their houses were inhabited not only in the “2”nd, but also still in the “5”th century, although nothing has changed in the buildings and not even repairs are detectable for the 300 years in between.
Some really amazing finds, in my opinion. Civilization collapses with little or no ability to mint coins (why bother? 80% of the population is gone. Just use the old ones lying around) so they get hoarded by the survivors/barbarians - whomever. And by the 9th or tenth century they're all left together in various places. Talk about confusing the issue of imperial timelines.
The "Tours" group misreading Greek and Latin text fragments combined with hordes of "imperial" coins spanning multiple dynasties all end up in the same place. It makes sense how the C's mentioned that if there are any "villains" (manufacturing history) it may just be the ones at the beginning and the end of the "Dark Ages". IE: the Flavians and the Carolingians. It sure puts "Dark Ages" into context. It's as if nothing worked and there was no ability to create any continuity for centuries in the west.
As Laura mentioned in SHOTW and FPTM, there are doublets in the New and Old Testaments that show interpolations and overlays. Gunnar Heishon has found the same thing between Justinian and Diocletian as well as Domitian.
The same Persian/Parthian emperor shows up with the same name (Khosrow) centuries apart - and multiple times!
From GH:
There is almost nothing known about the 2nd/3rd c. Narses of the Severans. The Khosrow of the same period would be completely
unknown if he hadn't left coins. But even these coins are doubtful. They could also belong to a Khosrow (89-128 CE) of the time of
the Roman emperors from Domitian (81-96 CE) to Hadrian (117-138 CE).
If the coins of the Severan Khosrow belong to the Khosrow of the 1st/2nd century, the question arises whether the sources about the
Severan Khosrow were used up for the Khosrow of Justinian. The emperor would then have taken over not only the jurists, but also
the Persian opponents of the Severans. If the Khosrow of the Severans is none other than the Khosrow of Justinian his coins should
differ from those of the 1st/2nd c. Khosrow. The complications do not end here because the Severan Khosrow resembling Justinian’s Khosrow (531-579 CE) also resembled the Khosrow (591-628 CE) in the time of Mauricius (582-602 CE), Focas (602-610 CE), and Heraclius (610-641).
I think this is some telling evidence. The same named Parthian emperor is used over and over again - with the exact same coins?
I think it was in SHOTW that Laura suspected that the destruction of Rome's infrastructure couldn't have been done by mere "barbarians" and that something more extreme was going on.
From GH:
Both rulers (Diocletian and Justinian) are connected to events in Rome. There, however, no apartments, kitchens, latrines, water pipes or roads were built between the 230s CE and the 930s CE (Heinsohn 2018b). From a stratigraphic point of view, therefore, all events placed in Rome that are textbook dated between the 230s and the 930s CE must be followed by a question mark. Personalities and deeds from this
period must be accommodated in such a way that they can be linked to the unquestionable period in which Rome was alive and
building. All narratives and persons which are now distributed over 930 years must be accommodated within just 230 to 240 years.
As mentioned in earlier posts in this thread - coins are key. I think this section from GH defines the issue very well:
Chronological overlaps that indicate simultaneity do not exist only within Late Antiquity (e.g. between Anastasius and Justinian or
between Justinian and Heraclius etc.). They range from the 2nd to the beginning of the 10th century CE. The coin finds of Raqqa, for
example, which stratigraphically belongs to the Early Middle Ages (8th-10th century), also contain imperial Roman coins from
Imperial Antiquity (1st-3rd century) and Late Antiquity (4th-7th century). Coins of Roman Emperors found in 8th-10th c. CE strata of Raqqa
that disappeared under sand in the 930s CE (Heidemann 2008).
Archaeologists are particularly confident of correctly dating finds from 1st millennium excavation sites when they find coins
associated with them. A coin-dated layer is considered to be of utmost scientific precision. But how do scholars know the dates of
the coins? From coin catalogues!
How do the authors of these catalogues know how to date the coins? Not according to archaeological strata, but from the lists of Roman emperors. But how are the emperors dated and then sorted into these lists? Nobody knows for sure. One may know well established sequences of imperial dynasties (Julio-Claudians, Flavians, Antonines, Severans etc.), that can
also be confirmed stratigraphically. But nobody knows a stratigraphy in which the coins of the West Roman and East Roman emperors of the one thousand years of the 1st millennium are found in superimposed layers.
Since the excavators – seduced by the seemingly hundred percent certainty of the coin dates – trust these more than their own stratigraphic findings, they conclude from coins of – for example – the “2”nd as well as the “5”th century in one and the same settlement layer that their houses were inhabited not only in the “2”nd, but also still in the “5”th century, although nothing has changed in the buildings and not even repairs are detectable for the 300 years in between.
Some really amazing finds, in my opinion. Civilization collapses with little or no ability to mint coins (why bother? 80% of the population is gone. Just use the old ones lying around) so they get hoarded by the survivors/barbarians - whomever. And by the 9th or tenth century they're all left together in various places. Talk about confusing the issue of imperial timelines.
The "Tours" group misreading Greek and Latin text fragments combined with hordes of "imperial" coins spanning multiple dynasties all end up in the same place. It makes sense how the C's mentioned that if there are any "villains" (manufacturing history) it may just be the ones at the beginning and the end of the "Dark Ages". IE: the Flavians and the Carolingians. It sure puts "Dark Ages" into context. It's as if nothing worked and there was no ability to create any continuity for centuries in the west.
This is what the slavs know. (Translated)
[In the middle of the 19th century, the Slavs moved away from Christian thought, due to the lack of church books in their own language. Cyril and Methodius therefore compiled the first Slavic alphabet and translated the first books into the first Slavic literary language.
Cyril and Methodius are known as the "first teachers" of Slavs, and today they are celebrated as national apostles and saints in all Slavic countries.
The first book that the Slavs received in their own language was the "Bible" translated by Cyril and Methodius. The main reason for this was, as Stojan Novaković wrote, that "the Greek and Bulgarian Slavs, not having church books in their own language, began to return to idolatry." Therefore, Cyril and Methodius gave the Slavs literacy, so that they would understand Christian thought.
The holy apostles of the Slavs, Constantine (827-869) and Methodius (?-885) were born in Thessaloniki. Methodius was first in military service, after which he managed the Slavic region of the Greek Empire for a while, and then he became a monk on Olympus.
Methodius' younger brother, Constantine, grew up at court, together with Emperor Michael III. That's where he got most of his education and knowledge. He had the opportunity to hold high government jobs, but he turned to spirituality because of his love for science.
Constantine was first the librarian of the church of Saint Sophia, after which he left Constantinople and followed in the footsteps of his brother Methodius. He became a monk and received the monastic name - Cyril. He began his apostolic ministry at the age of 24. Then, at the request of Emperor Michael III, he went to the Slavic lands, which occupied all of Hungary, old Pannonia and the Danube region.
Emperor Mihailo III assigned Cyril and Methodius the mission of educating the Slavic people, who at that moment began to move away from Christianity. They composed the first complex Slavic script - the Glagolitic alphabet, and wrote translations of the most necessary church books with it, especially the "Bible", in a language that Slavs from all over the world could understand.
AND AFTER CYRIL, CYRILIC
The mission of Cyril and Methodius was extremely successful in Bulgaria, which is why they received an invitation from the Moravian prince Rastislav, who also wanted his people to listen to the church service in their own, Slavic language. Namely, Rastislav had a big problem with the influence of the Frankish clergy on the Slavic population, which is why he tried to preserve the cultural identity of his subjects by using the Slavic alphabet and church services in the Slavic language.
After a three-year stay in Moravia, Cyril and Methodius went to Pannonia, to the court of Prince Kocelj, to introduce him to their work on Slavic church literature. After Emperor Michael III died, they did not return to Constantinople, but headed to Rome. There the Pope gave support to two missionaries in the fight against the disobedient Frankish archbishops. Cyril, however, fell ill in Rome and soon died from the consequences of a serious illness. His work was continued by Methodius, together with his students.
A lot of time has passed since then. Slavic literature, written in the language founded by Cyril and Methodius, lived as such for a long time and spread to the right to the Zeta littoral, to the left to Bulgaria, and even reached Constantinople itself. Thus, Cyril and Methodius began a great undertaking of literacy for all Slavic people, which their students and followers continued for centuries after their death. They united all Slavic peoples with words: How Cyril and Methodius gave the Slavs a letter.
In the middle of the 19th century, the Slavs moved away from Christian thought, due to the lack of church books in their own language. Cyril and Methodius therefore compiled the first Slavic alphabet and translated the first books into the first Slavic literary language.
Cyril and Methodius are known as the "first teachers" of Slavs, and today they are celebrated as national apostles and saints in all Slavic countries.
The first book that the Slavs received in their own language was the "Bible" translated by Cyril and Methodius. The main reason for this was, as Stojan Novaković wrote, that "the Greek and Bulgarian Slavs, not having church books in their own language, began to return to idolatry." Therefore, Cyril and Methodius gave the Slavs literacy, so that they would understand Christian thought.
MISSION OF LITERACY OF SLAVS
The holy apostles of the Slavs, Constantine (827-869) and Methodius (?-885) were born in Thessaloniki. Methodius was first in military service, after which he managed the Slavic region of the Greek Empire for a while, and then he became a monk on Olympus.
Methodius' younger brother, Constantine, grew up at court, together with Emperor Michael III. That's where he got most of his education and knowledge. He had the opportunity to hold high government jobs, but he turned to spirituality because of his love for science.
Constantine was first the librarian of the church of Saint Sophia, after which he left Constantinople and followed in the footsteps of his brother Methodius. He became a monk and received the monastic name - Cyril. He began his apostolic ministry at the age of 24. Then, at the request of Emperor Michael III, he went to the Slavic lands, which occupied all of Hungary, old Pannonia and the Danube region.
Emperor Mihailo III assigned Cyril and Methodius the mission of educating the Slavic people, who at that moment began to move away from Christianity. They composed the first complex Slavic script - the Glagolitic alphabet, and wrote translations of the most necessary church books with it, especially the "Bible", in a language that Slavs from all over the world could understand.
AND AFTER CYRIL, CYRIL
The mission of Cyril and Methodius was extremely successful in Bulgaria, which is why they received an invitation from the Moravian prince Rastislav, who also wanted his people to listen to the church service in their own, Slavic language. Namely, Rastislav had a big problem with the influence of the Frankish clergy on the Slavic population, which is why he tried to preserve the cultural identity of his subjects by using the Slavic alphabet and church services in the Slavic language.
After a three-year stay in Moravia, Cyril and Methodius went to Pannonia, to the court of Prince Kocelj, to introduce him to their work on Slavic church literature. After Emperor Michael III died, they did not return to Constantinople, but headed to Rome. There the Pope gave support to two missionaries in the fight against the disobedient Frankish archbishops. Cyril, however, fell ill in Rome and soon died from the consequences of a serious illness. His work was continued by Methodius, together with his students.
A lot of time has passed since then. Slavic literature, written in the language founded by Cyril and Methodius, lived as such for a long time and spread to the right to the Zeta littoral, to the left to Bulgaria, and even reached Constantinople itself. Thus, Cyril and Methodius began a great effort to educate all the Slavic people, which their students and followers continued for centuries after their death.
TRACES OF GLAGOLIC IN SERBIAN CYRILLIC
"If you ask Greek writers, saying: 'Who wrote your letters or translated the "Bible" and at what time', few of them know. If you ask Slavic writers, saying: 'Who wrote your letters or translated the Bible', everyone knows that and answering they say: 'Saint Constantine the Philosopher, called Cyril, he wrote letters for us and "the Bible was translated, and Methodius, his brother: because those who saw them are still alive", are the words of Crnorisca the Brave, a medieval monk and writer, student Cyril and Methodius.
The Slavic alphabet has been twofold since its inception. Cyril composed the Glagolitic script, the shape of which was extremely difficult to write, which is why shortly after that he began work on a new script, the so-called Cyrillic script. During his lifetime, he did not finish the work on the Cyrillic alphabet, so his students completed what he started
Of the 38 letters that the original Glagolitic alphabet had, only one was included in the new alphabet, the Cyrillic alphabet. It is the letter "Ш". The letter "Š" comes to us from the Semitic alphabet and was most often used in originally Slavic words, although in numerous original Old Testament expressions the letter "S" was found instead of the letter "Š".
Later, when Vuk Stefanović Karadžić reformed the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, another Glagolitic sign was added to the alphabet. It is the sign "đ". In preserved Glagolitic monuments, it appears only in foreign words, mostly of Greek origin, such as "evangelje" ("gospel"). For example, until the letter "đ" was introduced into the Serbian Cyrillic alphabet, the word "građanin" ("citizen") was written as "gradžanin" ("citizen").
Words such as 'priest', 'municipality', 'righteous' and similar are living witnesses of the connection of today's language with the era of Cyril and Methodius. By creating the first Slavic alphabet and the first Slavic literary language, Cyril and Methodius laid the foundation for an independent Slavic culture.
SLAVIC SCRIPTURE BEFORE CYRIL AND METHODIUS
It is clear from the above that the Slavic alphabet got its specific form in the second half of the 9th century. However, it cannot be said that the Slavs before the appearance of Cyril and Methodius did not know how to express their thoughts through letters.
For example, the famous German chronicler Titmar, in the epic of Marzenburg, testifies that he saw several Slavic idols in the polytheistic food of the city of Retra and that his name was written on each of them with special signs. Even Crnorizac Hrabar, whom we quoted a little earlier, said that the Slavs used to read and write using special dashes and cutouts.
Unfortunately, the form of that early Slavic script has not been preserved, or even described in detail in the works of writers of that time. Many scientists, however, claim that they were runes and assume that the Slavs wrote with the signs of people from their neighborhood. Thus, the Slavs, accepting Christianity, began to express the sounds of their language with Greek and Latin letters, depending on whether Christianity came to them from Byzantium or from Rome.]
All I know personally from my life experience and that of my family lineage is that the slavic genes/bloodline are a thorn in the side of the PTB. The 'serbs' have been denied any existence before the 7th century and yet our script, the old slavic version, has been found as far as England before the Romans.
FWIW
Last edited:
this explains also the support of serbs by peter handke, for which he was greatly criticised...
i read a book on thes fictitious years. those believing in the absence of these years were called "recentistes".
axj
The Living Force
Recently I came back to this topic of our calendars having probably around 300-400 too many years. I was wondering how on Earth this could have been done to ALL the calendars that have been in use during and since the Middle Ages. There are Chinese, Japanese, Islamic, Hindu, Buddhist, Mongol, Iranian and even the Maya calendars (2012 was not 2012?).
Some of the clues how all these calendars were made to have 300-400 too many years, just like "our" Gregorian calendar:
- It is clear that the Vatican is at the center of the 300-400 extra years hoax, so seeing the Jesuits deeply involved in calendar-related "adjustments" worldwide since the 16th century is not surprising. For example, even as early as 1624-1644 two Jesuits helped "update" the Chinese calendar in China, which was presumably when it was made to fit with the already falsified Gregorian calendar.
- The "architect of the Gregorian calendar" itself was also a Jesuit (Christopher Clavius). It was basically his obfuscation around the question of how many days had to be adjusted that the hoax keeps going today.
- "Dark Ages" (which existed in every culture at some point) were probably stretched to add centuries which didn't happen, so that all calendars aligned with the Gregorian calendar hoax.
For me, the smoking gun evidence for 300-400 too many years is this:
The Gregorian calendar cut 10 days from the Julian calendar, because supposedly the spring equinox was on March 21st in the 3rd century. But this cannot be the case, because Augustus had his birthday on September 23 and was very proud that it was the fall equinox. Which means that the corresponding spring equinox was on March 21st already in the 1st century BC (and in the 3rd century the spring equinox would have already been 2-3 days earlier and not on March 21st).
In the 16th century, the spring equinox was on March 11th and already off by 10 days from March 21st. If indeed 1600 years had passed since the beginning of the Julian calendar (when one extra day started accumulating every hundred years or so) until the Gregorian reform in our "16th" century, then the calendar should have been corrected by about 13 days. Since the actual corrected discrepancy was only 10 days, this means that 300-400 years less passed between the time of Caesar/Augustus and the 16th century.
I wish it was possible to explain this in even more simple terms.
Some of the clues how all these calendars were made to have 300-400 too many years, just like "our" Gregorian calendar:
- It is clear that the Vatican is at the center of the 300-400 extra years hoax, so seeing the Jesuits deeply involved in calendar-related "adjustments" worldwide since the 16th century is not surprising. For example, even as early as 1624-1644 two Jesuits helped "update" the Chinese calendar in China, which was presumably when it was made to fit with the already falsified Gregorian calendar.
- The "architect of the Gregorian calendar" itself was also a Jesuit (Christopher Clavius). It was basically his obfuscation around the question of how many days had to be adjusted that the hoax keeps going today.
- "Dark Ages" (which existed in every culture at some point) were probably stretched to add centuries which didn't happen, so that all calendars aligned with the Gregorian calendar hoax.
For me, the smoking gun evidence for 300-400 too many years is this:
The Gregorian calendar cut 10 days from the Julian calendar, because supposedly the spring equinox was on March 21st in the 3rd century. But this cannot be the case, because Augustus had his birthday on September 23 and was very proud that it was the fall equinox. Which means that the corresponding spring equinox was on March 21st already in the 1st century BC (and in the 3rd century the spring equinox would have already been 2-3 days earlier and not on March 21st).
In the 16th century, the spring equinox was on March 11th and already off by 10 days from March 21st. If indeed 1600 years had passed since the beginning of the Julian calendar (when one extra day started accumulating every hundred years or so) until the Gregorian reform in our "16th" century, then the calendar should have been corrected by about 13 days. Since the actual corrected discrepancy was only 10 days, this means that 300-400 years less passed between the time of Caesar/Augustus and the 16th century.
I wish it was possible to explain this in even more simple terms.
