Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

[moyal]

Father Hardouin’s Prolegomena ad censuram veterum scriptorum has been translated into English in 1909...

...and look who translated it.

-> Study Version of Edwin Johnson's "The Pauline Epistles - Re-studied and Explained"

 

[Niall]

Maybe that can explain this:

Massive 600kg haul of ancient Roman coins unearthed in Spain | Archaeology | The Guardian

Construction workers working on water pipes in Seville stumble upon ‘unique’ collection of bronze coins said to be worth millions of euros

amp.theguardian.com

That article contains an interesting description of the state these 'Roman' coins were found in:

The coins are stamped with the inscriptions of emperors Maximian and Constantine, and they appeared not to have been in circulation as they show little evidence of wear and tear.

It is thought they were intended to pay the army or civil servants.

“The majority were newly minted and some of them probably were bathed in silver, not just bronze,” said Navarro.

 

[Human]

While checking St. Cyril's/Constantine's and St. Methodius'/Michael's early lives as described on Hrvatska enciklopedija of Croatian lexicographic institute Miroslav Krleža, empress Theodora appeared in the story which at first was confusing because with no other designation I thought of her to be Justinian's I empress Theodora.

From enciklopedija page, about St. Brothers:

About their lives and activities talk their Žitija [Life] written in Old Church Slavonic immediately after their death, as well as liturgical Praises. From Latin sources, apart from the preserved papal letters, there is also the Italic legend.

Sons of the high Byzantine military commander droungarios Leo, who was the deputy Thessaloniki strategist, the highest military and civilian authority in the Thessaloniki theme. They were born in Thessaloniki, which since the end of VI century was surrounded by Slavs, and Slavic was spoken in the city itself, so the Brothers, in addition to Greek, from a young age knew and spoke the Slavic language.

Methodius followed his father's path: he was legally educated, devoted himself to state affairs, and was the governor of a province (archonship) with a Slavic majority, probably on the river Struma in Macedonia. During the coup d'etat and iconoclastic struggles, he retired to a monastery in Bithynia (Asia Minor).

Constantine showed exceptional abilities from childhood, so after his initial schooling in Thessaloniki, after his father's death, thanks to the logothete Theoktistos, Chancellor of Empress Theodora, he arrived in Constantinople where he was raised and educated at the imperial court, and then at Magnaura - Imperial High School, where his teachers were the most famous Greek scholars of the time: Leo the Mathematician and Photius (Photius), later Patriarch of Constantinople. He became a librarian of the Patriarchate of Constantinople and received the office of professor of philosophy and director at Magnaura, succeeding his teacher Photius. Due to his studies, he earned the honorary title of "Philosopher".

Constantine the Philosopher, according to the news from the Life, hagiographic biography, participated in several important state missions: 850/851. The court sent him among the Saracens (Arabs) to the court of Caliph Mutavakkil in Samara (where he met the Samaritan script), on the Tigris river. In 856 he went to his brother in monastery in Asia Minor, where Methodius had already retired in times of political and ecclesiastical strife, and in 860 together with Methodius as imperial envoy, he went on a mission among the Turkish Khazars in southern Russia, who built a strong state in the area from the Dnieper to the Caspian Sea. There he perfected his Hebrew language, meeting - according to ancient tradition - "Russian writings" (russkymi pismeni; written translation of some biblical texts); on an islet in the Cossack Bay near Kherson (near present-day Sevastopol) Constantine found the remains (relics) of an early Christian martyr, whom he considered the holy powers of the Roman bishop, Pope Clement I, who according to legend was exiled to Kherson, where he died a martyr's death. These relics ("holy powers") opened the door for him in his later mission among the Slavs, and especially in its affirmation in Rome. The direct result of that mission was an alliance made between the Khazars and Byzantium.

Empress Theodora, Justinian's I wife:

There are several indications of Theodora's possible birthplace. According to Michael the Syrian, her birthplace was in Mabbug, Syria;[4] Nicephorus Callistus Xanthopoulos names Theodora a native of Cyprus,[5] while the Patria, attributed to George Codinus, claims Theodora came from Paphlagonia.

Empress Theodora from St. Brothers story:

Possibly of Armenian descent, Theodora was born into a rural family of traders and military officials in Paphlagonia.

This similarity that they might have shared same region of origin (Paphlagonia; ancient region on the Black Sea coast of north central Anatolia, situated between Bithynia to the west and Pontus to the east), further lead to finding strange similarity between Byzantine emperor's family at the time and St. Brothers.


Going through wiki pages also showed an interesting 'coincidence' that at the time just before St. Brothers' religious activity, there were 2 Byzantine Iconoclasm periods, destroying many (possibly even all) religious images there were at the time, 'conveniently' erasing any possibility to see how 'early' Byzantine emperors looked like, who were also Roman emperors from Constantine the Great to at least Justinian I since he's portrayed as religious person on Ravenna mosaics. These periods were succeeded by wars against the Paulicians, for which wiki says:

The sources show that most Paulician leaders were Armenians.[12] The founder of the sect is said to have been an Armenian by the name of Constantine,[13] who hailed from Mananalis, a community near Samosata, Syria. He studied the Gospels and Epistles, combined dualistic and Christian doctrines and, upon the basis of the former, vigorously opposed the formalism of the church. Regarding himself as having been called to restore the pure Christianity of Paul the Apostle (of Tarsus), he adopted the name Silvanus (one of Paul's disciples), and about 660, he founded his first congregation at Kibossa, Armenia. Twenty-seven years later, he was arrested by the Imperial authorities, tried for heresy and stoned to death.[13][1] Simeon, the court official who executed the order, was himself converted, and adopting the name Titus, became Constantine’s successor. He was burned to death (the punishment pronounced upon the Manichaeans) in 690.[1]

A whole new can of worms!


Regarding this strange similarity, it turned out that emperor Theophilos (iconoclast) and empress Theodora (iconophile) had 7 children, youngest being Michael, who would become emperor Michael III at the age of 2 (842 AD) when Theophilos died of dysentery. Theodora and group of advisers were appointed as regents for him at that time, most prominent of the advisors being Theoktistos, 'protector' of St. Brothers.

From wiki about empress Theodora:

Theophilos and Theodora had seven children: the sons Constantine and Michael (the future emperor Michael III) and the daughters Thekla, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria and Maria.[9] Constantine, briefly co-emperor,[24] drowned in a palace cistern at the age of two.
Unlike many emperors, Theophilos took great pride in his daughters.[23] Thekla, Anna and Anastasia were the eldest children, and were all proclaimed Augustae in the late 830s and commemorated on an highly unusual issue of coins, depicting Theophilos, Theodora and Thekla and the obverse (forward facing side) and Anna and Anastasia on the reverse.[23][24] Constantine was the fourth eldest, followed by Pulcheria and Maria. Michael was the couple's youngest child.[22]

Wiki about elder son Constantine is very interesting:

Constantine (Greek: Κωνσταντῖνος, c.834 – c.835[1]) was a prince of the Byzantine Empire. He appears in his father's coins bearing the title despotes, although it's possible that he was crowned emperor soon after, as his relatives Anna, Anastasia and the future Michael III were also crowned shortly after their birth.[2]

Constantine was the eldest son of Emperor Theophilos and Theodora. He had five sisters (Thekla, Anna, Anastasia, Pulcheria, Maria). As Theophilos succeeded his own father Michael II as basileus on 2 October 829, Constantine became heir to the throne. Soon afterwards he was crowned co-emperor and he appears as such on the coins of his father. He died in childhood and was buried in the Church of the Holy Apostles at Constantinople.

There is little clarity as to the dates of his birth, coronation and death. According to the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit he was born in the late 820s and died before 831, but his parents first met in May 830 and married the following month, suggesting a birth date of 831 at earliest.[3][4] In any case, only one emperor is mentioned in the De Ceremoniis for 831; Constantine is also missing on coins minted in 831/32 and 832/33, though this could mean he was only raised to co-emperor in 833. He must have died by 835, since in that year Theophilos was recorded as being without a male heir (Constantine's younger brother Michael III would be born in 840), a situation Theophilos attempted to rectify by marrying his infant daughter Maria to general Alexios Mosele, who shortly before this (possibly as early as 831) had been promoted to Caesar.

Shortly about general Alexios Mosele:

Alexios Mosele (Greek: Ἀλέξιος Μωσηλέ) or Musele/Mousele (Μουσελέ) was a Byzantine aristocrat and general, chosen by Emperor Theophilos (r. 829–842) for a time as his heir, betrothed to his daughter Maria and raised to the supreme dignity of Caesar. He campaigned in the Balkans, recovering territory from the Slavs, and fought with some success in Sicily against the Arabs. Recalled to Constantinople on suspicion of plotting to usurp the throne, he was imprisoned but later pardoned and allowed to retire to a monastery, where he spent the remainder of his days.

Now, going back to wiki about St. Brothers:

The two brothers were born in Thessalonica, then located in a Byzantine province with the same name, (today in Greece) – Cyril in about 827–828 and Methodius about 815–820. Cyril was reputedly the youngest of seven brothers; he was born Constantine,[9] but was given the name Cyril upon becoming a monk in Rome shortly before his death,[10][11][12] according to the Vita Cyrilli ("The Life of Cyril"). Methodius was born Michael and was given the name Methodius upon becoming a monk in Polychron Monastery at Mysian Olympus (present-day Uludağ), in northwest Turkey.[13] Their father was Leo, a droungarios of the Byzantine theme of Thessalonica, and their mother was Maria.
...
The exact ethnic origins of the brothers are unknown, there is controversy as to whether Cyril and Methodius were of Slavic[14] or Greek[15] origin, or both.[16] The two brothers lost their father when Cyril was fourteen, and the powerful minister Theoktistos, who was logothetes tou dromou, one of the chief ministers of the Empire, became their protector. He was also responsible, along with the regent Bardas, for initiating a far-reaching educational program within the Empire which culminated in the establishment of the University of Magnaura, where Cyril was to teach. Cyril was ordained as priest some time after his education, while his brother Methodius remained a deacon until 867/868.[17]

So, St. Brothers were (elder) Michael and (youngest of 7) Constantine, sons of high military officer Leo and unknown Maria, while on the other hand in same time period emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora had 2 sons, elder being Constantine who died in unknown circumstances and youngest of 7 children being Michael. On top of that, emperor gave his youngest daughter Maria into marriage to high military officer who operated in Balkans among Slavs, while St. Brothers' father, married to Maria, was also operating among Slavs in Thessalonica.

Prince Constantine, who appeared on emperor's family coins (from which no personal identification can be made), according to the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit was born in the late 820s (as Constantine/St. Cyril) and died before 831 because in the De Ceremoniis for 831 only one emperor was mentioned. Well, this one emperor could have been Constantine and not his father Theophilos, no way to say looking at the coins from 831/832 and 832/833 also. If so, Constantine would have been under age and regency would have been appointed, similarly to official version, when in 842 Michael III became sole emperor. Still no way to tell from coins at the time.

On the other hand, St. Cyril, born 827/828 as Constantine, lost his father at the age of 14, which would mean in 841/842, and then under the protection of Theoktistos arrived at the court, same Theoktistos who with empress Theodora ruled the empire as regents. In 850/851, St. Cyril as Constantine the Philosopher, went to Samara on diplomatic mission and then in 856 checked in to the monastery where his brother Methodius resided (or maybe not, because he didn't take new name at the time).

From wiki about Michael III:

During his minority, the empire was governed by a regency headed by his mother Theodora, her uncle Sergios, and the minister Theoktistos. The empress had iconodule sympathies and deposed Patriarch John VII of Constantinople, replacing him with the iconodule Patriarch Methodius I of Constantinople in 843. This put an end to the second spell of iconoclasm.[4]

As the emperor was growing up, the courtiers around him fought for influence. Increasingly fond of his uncle Bardas, Michael invested him with the title kaisar (Caesar – at the time a title second only to emperor) and allowed him to murder Theoktistos in November 855. With the support of Bardas and another uncle, a successful general named Petronas, Michael III overthrew the regency on 15 March 856 and relegated his mother and sisters to a monastery in 857.[5]

One year before Constantine the Philosopher retreat to monastery (when he would have became St. Cyril) his beloved protector and tutor was murdered! That's a pretty good reason to say FU to state affairs and turn to religion!
On the other hand, it's also pretty good reason to come back from Samara, take rightful throne and punish the culprits, for example sending the rest of your family into a monastery, just like Michael III was reported to have done.

So, Constantine the Philosopher could have been prince Constantine, son and heir of emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora, who would have in that case become emperor Constantine the Philosopher in 856, instead of his brother Michael III, officially the third and traditionally last member of the Amorian (or Phrygian) dynasty.


Other Michael, born in Thessalonika 815-820, after father's death, during iconoclastic struggles retreated to a monastery in Bithynia (Asia Minor) and became Methodius. Interestingly enough, shortly after emperor Theophilos' death, new Patriarch named Methodius I (first in line) was appointed, who also entered a monastery in Bithynia and so took the name Methodius!

About this Patriarch Methodius I:

Patriarch of Constantinople (842-846), defender of images during the second Iconoclast persecution, b. at Syracuse, towards the end of the eighth century; d. at Constantinople, 14 June, 846. The son of a rich family, he came, as a young man, to Constantinople intending to obtain a place at Court. But a monk persuaded him to change his mind and he entered a monastery. Under the Emperor Leo V (the Armenian, 813-820) the Iconoclast persecution broke out for the second time. The monks were nearly all staunch defenders of the images; Methodius stood by his order and distinguished himself by his opposition to the Government. In 815 the Patriarch Nicephorus I (806-815) was deposed and banished for his resistance to the Iconoclast laws; in his place Theodotus I (815-821) was intruded. In the same year Methodius went to Rome, apparently sent by the deposed patriarch, to report the matter to the pope (Paschal I, 817-824). He stayed in Rome till Leo V was murdered in 820 and succeeded by Michael II (820-829). Hoping for better things from the new emperor, Methodius then went back to Constantinople bearing a letter in which the pope tried to persuade Michael to change the policy of the Government and restore the Patriarch Nicephorus. But Michael only increased the fierceness of the persecution. As soon as Methodius had delivered his letter and exhorted the emperor to act according to it, he was severely scourged (with 70 stripes), taken to the island Antigoni in the Propontis, and there imprisoned in a disused tomb. The tomb must be conceived as a building of a certain size; Methodius lived seven years in it. In 828 Michael II, not long before his death, mitigated the persecution and proclaimed a general amnesty. Profiting by this, Methodius came out of his prison and returned to Constantinople almost worn out by his privations. His spirit was unbroken and he took up the defence of the holy images as zealously as before.

Up to this point, we have a guy born at Syracuse, who came young to Constantinople and ended up in monastery. At the time of birth of our other Methodius (Michael), this guy went to Rome due to iconoclast struggles in The Byzantium, similar to our Michael who for the same reasons entered a monastery in Bithynia (same as this guy?), in which way they both became Methodius!

When this Methodius returned to Costantinople in 820, he ended up striped and sent to a tomb on a island Antigoni in the Black Sea, but he popped out back in Constantinople in 828. What happened next with him?

Michael II was succeeded by his son Theophilus (829-842), who caused the last and fiercest persecution of image-worshippers. Methodius again withstood the emperor to his face, was again scourged and imprisoned under the palace. But the same night he escaped, helped by his friends in the city, who hid him in their house and bound up his wounds. For this the Government confiscated their property. But seeing that Methodius was not to be overcome by punishment, the emperor tried to convince him by argument. The result of their discussion was that Methodius to some extent persuaded the emperor. At any rate towards the end of the reign the persecution was mitigated. Theophilus died in 842 and at once the whole situation was changed. His wife, Theodora, became regent for her son Michael III (the Drunkard, 842-867). She had always been an image-worshipper in secret; now that she had the power she at once began to restore images, set free the confessors in prison and bring back everything to the conditions of the Second Nicene Council (787). The Patriarch of Constantinople, John VII (832-842), was an Iconoclast set up by the Government. As he persisted in his heresy he was deposed and Methodius was made patriarch in his place (842-846). Methodius then helped the empress-regent in her restoration. He summoned a synod at Constantinople (842) that approved of John VII's deposition and his own succession. It had no new laws to make about images. The decrees of Nicæa II that had received the assent of the pope and the whole Church as those of an Œcumenical Council were put in force again. On 19 Feb., 842, the images were brought in solemn procession back to the churches. This was the first "Feast of Orthodoxy", kept again in memory of that event on the first Sunday of Lent every year throughout the Byzantine Church. Methodius then proceeded to depose Iconoclast bishops throughout his patriarchate, replacing them by image-worshippers. In doing so he seems to have acted severely. An opposition formed itself against him that nearly became an organized schism. The patriarch was accused of rape; but the woman in question admitted on examination that she had been bought by his enemies.

On 13 March, 842, Methodius brought the relics of his predecessor Nicephorus (who had died in exile) with great honour to Constantinople. They were exposed for a time in the church of the Holy Wisdom, then buried in that of the Apostles. Methodius was succeeded by Ignatius, under whom the great schism of Photius broke out. Methodius is a saint to Catholics and Orthodox. He is named in the Roman Martyrology (14 June), on which day the Byzantine Church keeps his feast together with that of the Prophet Eliseus. He is acclaimed with the other patriarchs, defenders of images, in the service of the feast of Orthodoxy: "To Germanus, Tarasius, Nicephorus and Methodius, true high priests of God and defenders and teachers of Orthodoxy, R. Eternal memory (thrice)." The Uniate Syrians have his feast on the same day. The Orthodox have a curious legend, that his prayers and those of Theodora saved Theophilus out of hell. It is told in the Synaxarion for the feast of Orthodoxy.

St. Methodius is reputed to have written many works. Of these only a few sermons and letters are extant (in Migne, P.G., C, 1272-1325). An account of the martyrdom of Denis the Areopagite by him is in Migne, P.G., IV, 669-682, two sermons on St. Nicholas in N. C. Falconius, "S. Nicolai acta primigenia" (Naples, 1751), 39-74. For other fragments and scholia, see Krumbacher, "Byzantinische Litteratur" (Munich, 2nd ed., 1897), 167.

This St. Methodius, upon being appointed Patriarch, first made grand procession bringing religious images back into the churches and then brought some relics with great honour to Constantinople which ended up buried in the church of the Apostles.
He's a saint to both, East and West, and Syrians too, which is great honour given to him in the Church, suggesting that those relics were also important.

He spent 8 years in an island in Black Sea and then came to Byzantium city with very very important relics, similarly to St. Brothers who were said to have found their important relics on an island off shore Crimea. Hey, if those were relics of St. Clement, why we don't know about their triumphant return to Byzantium city with them, but we know about their triumphant arrival to Rome? Well, it seems we do know about 'their' triumphant return, but it wasn't them as St. Brothers but only this St. Methodius!

To return to our Michael who, after short service as governor of a province with a Slavic majority, was about to enter monastery and become Methodius, at the same time when this St. Methodius quietly died in 846. Extraordinary coincidence!
So, it seems we found our real St. Methodius, just without St. Cyril.

What about our other Michael?
Well, it seems some figure appeared on coins in 840, but it could mean that young Constantine only then became co-emperor in full sense, because in his father's coins he appeared bearing the title despotes. Then, in coins from 842, after emperor Theophilos' death, where empress regent Theodora's shown with one smaller figure, it's more likely that regent Theoktistos was that smaller figure than then newly 'crowned' emperor Constantine, ups, I mean emperor Michael III.


Hypotheses:

Constantine and Michael were not born in Thessalonika, only maybe Michael (or Martin as in St. Martin) was at Syracuse, who then became Methodius -> Methodios I of Constantinople -> St. Methodius.

Michael, as in Michael III was not born in 840 in then Byzantium city to emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora, but their 'elder' son Constantine appeared on coins as 'normal' sole emperor, while smaller figure represented regent Theoktistos, suggesting the year when Theophilos really died.


Speculations:

Despot Constantine became emperor Constantine, who 'converted' at some point to religious way of life (relation with Paulicians?) and became emperor Constantine the Philosopher and St. Methodius, St. Brothers. As such, they (dual form would be great here) were remembered throughout whole Europe and wider, throughout whole known world at the time, including then Arabs also, where organized religion was formed around the theme.

Slavs remember St. Brothers, not just St. Methodius, suggesting that St. Cyril did take part in missionary journeys, but not necessarily in the way official version wants us to believe. We're told that St. Brothers went among Slavs, to Moravia at the end, and that's the underlying reason for the Great Schism afterwards, due to conflict with Western Church's sphere of interest.

It seems to me that St. Brothers united and educated Slavs, ruled Francs (maybe even Celts and Normans or they might all be the same Galli Julius Caesar 'visited') as Charlemagne and St. Martin, maybe even Arabs spreading their new religion as the Prophet and his loyal warrior Ali.

And maybe in division in Islam as organized religion we can find some clue, piece of our real history.
It is said that main division in Islam between Shia Islam and Sunnī Islam came when the Prophet died in 632 AD and Ali succeeded him. If division East/West is a lie, then this division is likely also, and there was no conflict among people when St. Methodius (St. Martin and the Prophet) died. Emperor Constantine the Philosopher (Charlemagne, ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib) probably continued to reign whole known world at the time, giving birth to original myth of king Arthur and mage Merlin, i.e. to the myth of the Holy Grail.

 

[Laura]

I think what you wrote was really interesting.


It might been have worth it, despite the exhaustion.

It is exhausting because it is such a Gordian Knot. I've been dancing with it off and on for maybe 15 years or so.

Most of the proponents of the idea leave out the problem of catastrophism as a possible cause of either discontinuities in culture or time and I think that is a big weakness of their ideas (i.e. Fomenko).

You can't just erase everything and assume it is all fake. But still, it is clear that there is a LOT that is faked. Trying to untangle it is truly exhausting!

What seems to me to be clear at this moment is the problem of the eruption of Vesuvius and the burying of Pompeii and Herculaneum. We should be able to rely on the hard evidence of the ice cores, yes? If so, then we have to delete the 'history' between the claimed date of 79 AD and the later confirmed (by ice cores) date. But it might not be that easy. There may have been things going on elsewhere at a different time that were set up as 'retroactive continuity.'

For example, some years back I began a project I called "Chronicle of the Fall." I was compiling and collating all the ancient sources I could get my hands on.

Historian	Dates lived or written, or dates covered in particular
Zachariah Rhetor	465 - 553
John Malalas	491 - 578
John of Ephesus	507-588?
Pseudo-Zachariah	507 – 588? (contemporary of John of E)
Theophanes of Byzantium	518 - 567 ?
Agathias	530 - 582
Evagrius Scholasticus	536 – 593
Menander Protector	558 - 582
Chronicon Paschale	600 – 627
Zuqnin	? - 775
Dionysius of Tel Mahre	818 - 845
Constantine Porphyrogenitus	913 - 959
Suda	913 – 959?
Michael the Syrian	1166-1199

In the above table, we notice that there were eight authors of histories who were probable eye-witnesses to what may have been going on during the final collapse/ending of the Roman Empire. The writings of some of them have survived at least in part, and others have survived only in later compilations made about 300 years later with the exception of the Zuqnin Chronicle. The Zuqnin Chronicle actually fits the description of carefully copied histories preserved in ecclesiastical enclaves away from the death and destruction. Michael the Syrian, as a member of the later Eastern Orthodox Church also stands out for his efforts at preservation of history.

I then began my task as follows:

Chronicle of the Fall​

Now, following our illustrious ancestors, what we are going to do is to create our own chronicle! I will go through those years of collapse and decimation of population to see what the peoples of those times were experiencing according to our witnesses, in their own words, and cite them year by year. I will be focusing on particular events, those that reveal the astronomical, climatological, geological, and sometimes sociological, elements Additionally, I will be using every other scrap of information I have found to fill in the picture; some of this will be from modern archaeological or astronomical studies. Most of the material comes from Procopius, John Malalas and John of Ephesus as preserved in the texts described above. Since I realize that the average person doesn’t normally acquire and read such texts, again, I will quote in extenso. Also, I will include the different accounts as preserved in the noted sources so that you, the reader, will be able to see how things have been redacted or altered in the transmission. In some cases, there will be three or more accounts of the same event ostensibly by the same original witness, but preserved quite differently. This reveals that some compilations simply omitted certain events entirely. Other accounts have the same event included more than once which may suggest that they were working from more than one text themselves.

I then began with Constantine in 312. Perhaps I should have started earlier?

Would anyone like me to include this text here?

 

[Human]

Would anyone like me to include this text here?

I would like, please.
Reading SHOTW again inspired me to research for previous post above, Thank you.

 

[Human]

I then began with Constantine in 312. Perhaps I should have started earlier?

Seeing that one of your sources is Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote extensively about Slavs and could thus be hypothetical emperor Constantine the Philosopher, I would suggest to go to early record about prosecution of Christians, i.e. emperor Valerian cca 260, because of possible connection to presecutions of Paulicians that officially happened when emperor Mihael III took the thrown.
Possibly there were no persecution, so I'd start looking for discrepancies at that place.

 

[Human]

Seeing that one of your sources is Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote extensively about Slavs and could thus be hypothetical emperor Constantine the Philosopher, I would suggest to go to early record about prosecution of Christians, i.e. emperor Valerian cca 260, because of possible connection to presecutions of Paulicians that officially happened when emperor Mihael III took the thrown.
Possibly there were no persecution, so I'd start looking for discrepancies at that place.

Also, I'm suggesting that St. Clement was equivalent to St. Methodius' part as hypothetical St. Brother to emperor Constantine the Great.

Pope Clement I (Latin: Clemens Romanus; Greek: Ancient Greek: Κλήμης Ῥώμης, romanized: Klēmēs Rōmēs; died 99), also known as Saint Clement of Rome, is listed by Irenaeus and Tertullian as the bishop of Rome, holding office from 88 AD to his death in 99 AD.[2] He is considered to be the first Apostolic Father of the Church, one of the three chief ones together with Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch.[3]

In addition, seeing Polycarp next to him and Ignatius of Antioch, making triplet instead of dual and breaking the pattern/symmetry, it seems to me that Ignatius of Antioch could be same as St. Clement. And it may point to culprit of all this mess, Polycarp, as in "it can't resist not to show it self".

At the end a speculation:
The relics, pismmena, might be remainings of original Pauline letters, found somewhere along the coast of Black Sea. Since Crimea on one side and Bithynia on the other were already taken, and St. Brothers went to Slavs with relics, Armenia on the other side looks likely, where first Paulicians were formed by Constantine Silvanus.

 

[Niall]

I don't recall whether it was in "Mystery of the Cathedrals" or "Dwellings of the Philosophers", but Fulcanelli went on and on for a bit about the faking of history and the planting of fake evidence including salting the ground with fake coins. Can anybody pull that excerpt up?

Also, have a look at the brief rundown on the Historia Augusta here:

Historia Augusta - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Some choice quotes from that Wiki page:

Nevertheless, it is unwise to dismiss it altogether as it is also the principal Latin source regarding a century of Roman history.

That may be why it's wise to dismiss it altogether!

For example, scholars had assumed that Veturius Macrinus, mentioned in the Life of Didius Julianus, was an invention of the author, like so many other names. However, an inscription was uncovered which confirmed his existence and his post as praetorian prefect in 193. Likewise, the information that Hadrian's Wall was constructed during Hadrian's reign and that the Antonine Wall was built during the reign of Antoninus Pius are recorded by no other extant ancient writer apart from the Historia Augusta, the veracity of which has been confirmed by inscriptions.

Inscriptions, as we've seen, are not necessarily proofs. They can be added later, just as texts and coins can.

The untrustworthiness of the History stems from the multifarious kinds of fraudulent (as opposed to simply inaccurate) information that run through the work, becoming ever more dominant as it proceeds. The various biographies are ascribed to different invented 'authors', and continue with the dedicatory epistles to Diocletian and Constantine, the quotation of fabricated documents, the citation of non-historical authorities, the invention of persons (extending even to the subjects of some of the minor biographies), presentation of contradictory information to confuse an issue while making a show of objectivity, deliberately false statements, and the inclusion of material which can be shown to relate to events or personages of the late 4th century rather than the period supposedly being written about.

If that!

While most are probably not willing to simply call it out as fraud, it's interesting that there is 'scholarly consensus' for this source material (which covers almost two centuries of 'Late Roman' history) being 'just 17% reliable'.

 

[Human]

The relics, pismmena, might be remainings of original Pauline letters, found somewhere along the coast of Black Sea. Since Crimea on one side and Bithynia on the other were already taken, and St. Brothers went to Slavs with relics, Armenia on the other side looks likely, where first Paulicians were formed by Constantine Silvanus.

One of the oldest Glagolitic inscriptions in Istria is Plomin tablet.

Plomin tablet (Croatian: Plominski natpis) is a Glagolitic inscription in Croatian at the outer wall of the church of Saint George in Plomin, Croatia. Roman god of flora and fauna Silvanus is portrayed. This inscription bears witness of early parallelism of two cultural currents on Istrian territory: Romance symbol is an Antique relief, and Slavic, i.e. Croatian symbol is the Croatian language and Glagolitic script.

Regarding dating, the top authority on Glagolitic inscriptions in Croatia was Branko Fučić, died in 1999.

Branko Fučić has in 1953, publishing Plomin tablet for the first time, formed an alternative theory according to which the relief

...should be looked upon as a primitive provincial work of Late Antique (either pagan or Christian), or as an early Romanesque work, which after the period of wattle ornamentation reintroduces human figure into sculptural works. At any case, the connections of monument with the Late Antique plastics are beyond any doubt. They represent either the very much alive Antique tradition, or the imitation of the medieval carver of some Antique template.[6]

In his 1971 work, about Plomin tablet Fučić says that it stands back to back to oldest dated Glagolitic manuscripts (almost all found in mid 19th century) by analyzing the symbols on the tablet in linguistical manner.

Looking at the figure of Silvanus on the tablet and figures on coins from Constantine the Philosopher era in mid 800, it seems they all represent same character, Silvanus.

I suggest Silvanus to be the partner of St. Clement when they as St. Brothers in late antique era went on their journey from Armenia to the Balkans among the Slavs, bringing them letters/pismmena to read and write enabling them to 'speak/talk' (letter glagoli in Glagolitic script by which script got its name).


Plomin tablet

 

[Human]

Thinking about the Empire hypothetical St. Brothers could have reigned, Alexander the Great came to mind. Then, I found out that there's a St. Brothers element in the story, Alexander and Hephaestion.

Hephaestion (Ancient Greek: Ἡφαιστίων Hephaistíon; c. 356 BC – October 324 BC), son of Amyntor, was an ancient Macedonian nobleman and a general in the army of Alexander the Great. He was "by far the dearest of all the king's friends; he had been brought up with Alexander and shared all his secrets."[3] This relationship lasted throughout their lives, and was compared, by others as well as themselves, to that of Achilles and Patroclus.

Guy writting about Alexander happened to be Plutarch.

Plutarch (/ˈpluːtɑːrk/; Greek: Πλούταρχος, Ploútarchos; Koine Greek: [ˈplutarkʰos]; AD 46 – after AD 119)[1] was a Greek Middle Platonist philosopher,[2] historian, biographer, essayist, and priest at the Temple of Apollo in Delphi. He is known primarily for his Parallel Lives, a series of biographies of illustrious Greeks and Romans, and Moralia, a collection of essays and speeches.[3] Upon becoming a Roman citizen, he was named Lucius Mestrius Plutarchus (Λούκιος Μέστριος Πλούταρχος).[a]

With his Parallel Lives, Plutarch could have represented the model for 'inserted' genealogies into human historical timeline, while The Moralia, composed first, presented sets of social and religious treatises/rules, altogether giving the term Plutarchy very appropriate new meaning.

In addition, taking position of a priest in Temple of Apollo in Delphi for himself, it's like his vanity said to us itself that maybe 'Troy' was in question, where besides Achilles' and Patroclus' scenes in Alexander and Hephaestion relation, we also have Odysseus scene when Alexander's returning from India. All this points to illusion, suggesting that Alexander's death was due to toast in honour of Heracles.

On either 10 or 11 June 323 BC, Alexander died in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar II, in Babylon, at age 32.[143] There are two different versions of Alexander's death, and details of the death differ slightly in each. Plutarch's account is that roughly 14 days before his death, Alexander entertained admiral Nearchus and spent the night and next day drinking with Medius of Larissa.[144] Alexander developed a fever, which worsened until he was unable to speak. The common soldiers, anxious about his health, were granted the right to file past him as he silently waved at them.[145] In the second account, Diodorus recounts that Alexander was struck with pain after downing a large bowl of unmixed wine in honour of Heracles, followed by 11 days of weakness; he did not develop a fever, instead dying after some agony.[146] Arrian also mentioned this as an alternative, but Plutarch specifically denied this claim.[144]

Seeing a model for religious reformation based on councils/synods in Ptolemy III Euergetes' CV, I suspect 3rd agent among Egypt pyramids, who couldn't resist to include his name into our history on a prominent position. First suspect being 'author' of The Almagest, 2nd-century Greek-language mathematical and astronomical treatise, Claudius Ptolemy who cemented whole 'illusion' from scientific/astronomical side.

That gives us a triplet of Ps, Polycarp - Plutarch - Ptolemy for Alexander the Great - Gaius Julius Caesar - St. Brothers, by which Greek Enforcers spun a triangle/pyramid on our awareness of ourselves and Universe around, trying to conquer and control our human dual nature by denying us (blinding us like in the Orion myth) our real past and our real future.

It's an Illusion, Truth will find a way to come Home, where Heart resides, and once there, it just needs to be spoken aloud to shatter (all) the iron bonds and chains keeping us in prison.

 

[Nević Nenad]

Crazy idea just pop up, what if the history as we know it, or "remember" it, is actually history that happened in more than one reality? In some time in history more realities merged, and our 3D brains now sees it as one history.

 

[Laura]

Seeing a model for religious reformation based on councils/synods in Ptolemy III Euergetes' CV, I suspect 3rd agent among Egypt pyramids, who couldn't resist to include his name into our history on a prominent position. First suspect being 'author' of The Almagest, 2nd-century Greek-language mathematical and astronomical treatise, Claudius Ptolemy who cemented whole 'illusion' from scientific/astronomical side.

That gives us a triplet of Ps, Polycarp - Plutarch - Ptolemy for Alexander the Great - Gaius Julius Caesar - St. Brothers, by which Greek Enforcers spun a triangle/pyramid on our awareness of ourselves and Universe around, trying to conquer and control our human dual nature by denying us (blinding us like in the Orion myth) our real past and our real future.

It's an Illusion, Truth will find a way to come Home, where Heart resides, and once there, it just needs to be spoken aloud to shatter (all) the iron bonds and chains keeping us in prison.

It doesn't help very much to speculate too much in advance of collecting and examining all the evidence. It only adds to the confusion. Best to just present what is known about the different characters (or what is claimed about them), and let it all percolate.

 

[Human]

It doesn't help very much to speculate too much in advance of collecting and examining all the evidence. It only adds to the confusion. Best to just present what is known about the different characters (or what is claimed about them), and let it all percolate.

I agree and apologize for the noise and confusion added.

--------------------------
It seems to me that whoever made a Gordian knot from our history timeline wanted us to believe that only way to disentangle it would be to cut it like Alexander the Great allegedly did.
Seeing that 'the cutting' (splitting) was the leitmotif for Christianity (through 'cutting' of Roman empire to Eastern and Western) and Islam ('splitting' to Shia and Sunni when the Prophet died), it suggested that, apart from Homer's work (e.g. emperor Theophilos was to marry another woman, but then he gave the apple to Theodora choosing her instead), they also used parts of true story of Alexander the Great, together with Caesar's and St. Brothers', to muddy the waters.
So, I expect parts of those 3 stories, together with parts from Iliad and ‎Odyssey, to be mixed and meshed into what we know to be our official history about Alexander the great, Gaius Julius Caesar and St. Brothers.
--------------------------

It was shown in previous post that the son of emperor Theophilos and empress Theodora, despotes Constantine, could have been Constantine the Philosopher on the one hand, and the heir to the throne when Theophilos died on the other.

From there, trail led in 2 directions (so far) I'm gonna follow:
1. Glagolitic inscriptions, manuscripts and books;
2. general Alexios Mosele, betrothed to Theophilos' youngest daughter Maria and raised to the supreme dignity of Caesar, who just happened to had the same name as Alexios Mosele, general active under Constantine VI (r. 780–797).

 

[Jtucker]

Crazy idea just pop up, what if the history as we know it, or "remember" it, is actually history that happened in more than one reality? In some time in history more realities merged, and our 3D brains now sees it as one history.

I really hope this isn't the case, but the more I think about it, it does seem like a possibility. What if all these past probable realities exist as physical stratigraphy to be discovered by archaeology in the ground, but not in our human perceived linear chronology until our awareness grasps it? They may be parallel remnants in an earth that doesn't recognize linear time? Maybe we are the quantum observer - what we find is what we are is able to recognize at the "time" as a probable past? The un-imagined past can't be seen?

In Seth Speaks, a question was asked about discovering Atlantis and the response was that it couldn't be discovered until Atlantis was part of our recognized probable future. Between 1973 when that book was written and now, Atlantis is far more "probably" being discovered than it was then. Regardless of the accuracy of Cayce or Seth, we can see a similar discovery in Gobekli Tepe. That complex had been sitting under a goat pasture for 12k years - no one seemed to mention it - or know about its significance. But in the past 20 years of it becoming forefront, so has Younger Dryas and the Atlantis theories with Carlson and Hancock as well as Pierre's Comet Cycle research. So if the C's say there can be time loops from 4D causing the Kennedy assassination, can't there be the same thing with Constantine and the "fake" late empire as well?

I do hope there is a straight line we can make sense of - because otherwise it will be a brain-twisting 4D chess game exercise to try and unravel any coherent timeline before 900 AD.

In the recent session after the late empire was erased by the C's, one forum member postulated a horizontal history that was re-written to linear history from the end of Marcus Aurelius to Justinian's destruction. Probably during the middle ages - possibly by the Carolingians. The fact that Constantine's "head" was found in Nis, Serbia makes a strong point to back this. The same thing goes for how his sculpture is "provincial" level art. Maybe a number of these "Imperators" were generals with loyal armies (as was evident under Caesar) all claiming supremacy in competing parts of the empire after Marcus Aurelius died?

It would explain the spread of the coins - send your loyal legions far an wide to buy off any localities that will swear fealty to your new Emperor. The late Empire would almost look like the 18th century Holy Roman Empire with its complex allegiances and connected territories that are geographically separated throughout Europe. It may also be possible that the destruction described by Procopius in "Secret History" ended in the east and started in the west - possibly in a very short time, but with enough time for "fake" emperors to arise. So Rome the city is destroyed, but for a generation Constantine still ruled in Dacia/Serbia before its destruction and Justinian for another generation being the furthest one east. The final destruction of the empire happens in Constantinople when they run out of space or time? Almost like the whole Empire was running away from the destruction of Rome for decades?

The Carolingians do seem to have a need to create a "Christendom" timeline for all their theological and historical purposes of legitimacy. The parallel emperors that were once warring generals in the late empire, become a linear history peppered with just the right amount of inserted medieval theological controversy and oppression under certain "bad" emperors to martyr the right "saints" to legitimize the rebirth of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne - or his immediate successors. Doesn't the language of the weird theological "Heresies" that supposedly happened from Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon all sound medieval? Paul and Mark's language has nothing to do with all the technical nonsense supposedly written at those councils. They definitely seem "sent back" from medieval Europe to antiquity.

Whether Charlemagne is a composite figure, or more likely a lionized, marginal leader that was turned into a great hero, it seems to me that his offspring are very real people with "all the warts" in their history. Charles the Bald and his Irish theologian, Eriugena seem to have so much gravity to me, that they must be somewhat real as humans. I don't think I've come across it on the forum in the years I've been here, but Eriugena's, De Divisionae Naturae captures some pretty advanced "4D interface" ideas along the lines of Paul. I'm a dabbler in theology, so I don't want to make any brash statements that will get me beat up by the hardcore researchers here, but in my opinion, Bede, Nennius, and Gildas struggle to grasp the original Pauline concepts - the are about material observances. Only with Eriugena do ideas like "Theophany" arise. With his writings, I see the ancient world finally re-connect with the medieval.

It may be conceivable that if you had that level of theological thinking in the generation after Charlemagne, you may have also had the same talent available to rewrite late Roman history for the benefit of the "New and Holy" Roman Empire. If we're taking any European history as coherent, I think the generation after Charlemagne sets the stage for all of medieval history and very well may have created the accepted history of the late empire as well. Rome falls because of "Barbarians Heretics" and the oppression of the saintly "Saints". Not because of cataclysm warned of by Paul and probably observed by John of Patmos and Procopius. "The Secret History" continues...

 

[Laura]

I really hope this isn't the case, but the more I think about it, it does seem like a possibility. What if all these past probable realities exist as physical stratigraphy to be discovered by archaeology in the ground, but not in our human perceived linear chronology until our awareness grasps it? They may be parallel remnants in an earth that doesn't recognize linear time? Maybe we are the quantum observer - what we find is what we are is able to recognize at the "time" as a probable past? The un-imagined past can't be seen?

In Seth Speaks, a question was asked about discovering Atlantis and the response was that it couldn't be discovered until Atlantis was part of our recognized probable future. Between 1973 when that book was written and now, Atlantis is far more "probably" being discovered than it was then. Regardless of the accuracy of Cayce or Seth, we can see a similar discovery in Gobekli Tepe. That complex had been sitting under a goat pasture for 12k years - no one seemed to mention it - or know about its significance. But in the past 20 years of it becoming forefront, so has Younger Dryas and the Atlantis theories with Carlson and Hancock as well as Pierre's Comet Cycle research. So if the C's say there can be time loops from 4D causing the Kennedy assassination, can't there be the same thing with Constantine and the "fake" late empire as well?

I do hope there is a straight line we can make sense of - because otherwise it will be a brain-twisting 4D chess game exercise to try and unravel any coherent timeline before 900 AD.

In the recent session after the late empire was erased by the C's, one forum member postulated a horizontal history that was re-written to linear history from the end of Marcus Aurelius to Justinian's destruction. Probably during the middle ages - possibly by the Carolingians. The fact that Constantine's "head" was found in Nis, Serbia makes a strong point to back this. The same thing goes for how his sculpture is "provincial" level art. Maybe a number of these "Imperators" were generals with loyal armies (as was evident under Caesar) all claiming supremacy in competing parts of the empire after Marcus Aurelius died?

It would explain the spread of the coins - send your loyal legions far an wide to buy off any localities that will swear fealty to your new Emperor. The late Empire would almost look like the 18th century Holy Roman Empire with its complex allegiances and connected territories that are geographically separated throughout Europe. It may also be possible that the destruction described by Procopius in "Secret History" ended in the east and started in the west - possibly in a very short time, but with enough time for "fake" emperors to arise. So Rome the city is destroyed, but for a generation Constantine still ruled in Dacia/Serbia before its destruction and Justinian for another generation being the furthest one east. The final destruction of the empire happens in Constantinople when they run out of space or time? Almost like the whole Empire was running away from the destruction of Rome for decades?

The Carolingians do seem to have a need to create a "Christendom" timeline for all their theological and historical purposes of legitimacy. The parallel emperors that were once warring generals in the late empire, become a linear history peppered with just the right amount of inserted medieval theological controversy and oppression under certain "bad" emperors to martyr the right "saints" to legitimize the rebirth of the Holy Roman Empire under Charlemagne - or his immediate successors. Doesn't the language of the weird theological "Heresies" that supposedly happened from Nicaea to the Council of Chalcedon all sound medieval? Paul and Mark's language has nothing to do with all the technical nonsense supposedly written at those councils. They definitely seem "sent back" from medieval Europe to antiquity.

Whether Charlemagne is a composite figure, or more likely a lionized, marginal leader that was turned into a great hero, it seems to me that his offspring are very real people with "all the warts" in their history. Charles the Bald and his Irish theologian, Eriugena seem to have so much gravity to me, that they must be somewhat real as humans. I don't think I've come across it on the forum in the years I've been here, but Eriugena's, De Divisionae Naturae captures some pretty advanced "4D interface" ideas along the lines of Paul. I'm a dabbler in theology, so I don't want to make any brash statements that will get me beat up by the hardcore researchers here, but in my opinion, Bede, Nennius, and Gildas struggle to grasp the original Pauline concepts - the are about material observances. Only with Eriugena do ideas like "Theophany" arise. With his writings, I see the ancient world finally re-connect with the medieval.

It may be conceivable that if you had that level of theological thinking in the generation after Charlemagne, you may have also had the same talent available to rewrite late Roman history for the benefit of the "New and Holy" Roman Empire. If we're taking any European history as coherent, I think the generation after Charlemagne sets the stage for all of medieval history and very well may have created the accepted history of the late empire as well. Rome falls because of "Barbarians Heretics" and the oppression of the saintly "Saints". Not because of cataclysm warned of by Paul and probably observed by John of Patmos and Procopius. "The Secret History" continues...

These are all very rational, reasonable, and interesting speculations. I've wondered something similar before, but never quite so developed as you have done here.