PDF Download The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy
Learn the technique of doing something from many resources. One of them is this publication qualify The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy It is an effectively known publication The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy that can be recommendation to check out now. This recommended book is one of the all fantastic The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy compilations that remain in this site. You will certainly likewise locate other title and motifs from various writers to search right here.
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy
PDF Download The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy
The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy. Reviewing makes you a lot better. Which says? Many wise words say that by reading, your life will be better. Do you believe it? Yeah, prove it. If you need the book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy to check out to prove the sensible words, you could visit this web page completely. This is the website that will provide all guides that possibly you require. Are guide's collections that will make you really feel interested to review? Among them here is the The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy that we will recommend.
For everyone, if you want to start accompanying others to check out a book, this The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy is much recommended. And you should obtain the book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy here, in the web link download that we give. Why should be here? If you desire other type of books, you will certainly consistently find them and also The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy Economics, national politics, social, scientific researches, religious beliefs, Fictions, and more books are provided. These readily available books remain in the soft data.
Why should soft documents? As this The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy, many people additionally will certainly should acquire the book earlier. Yet, sometimes it's so far means to obtain guide The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy, even in various other country or city. So, to alleviate you in discovering the books The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy that will certainly assist you, we help you by supplying the listings. It's not just the list. We will certainly give the advised book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy web link that can be downloaded and install directly. So, it will certainly not need more times as well as days to present it and various other publications.
Gather the book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy begin with now. Yet the extra method is by collecting the soft documents of the book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy Taking the soft documents can be conserved or stored in computer system or in your laptop computer. So, it can be more than a book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy that you have. The simplest means to expose is that you can additionally save the soft data of The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy in your ideal and readily available gizmo. This problem will certainly expect you frequently check out The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy in the extra times greater than talking or gossiping. It will certainly not make you have bad habit, however it will certainly lead you to have better habit to review book The Issue With Antiquity. (History; Fiction Or Science? Book 5), By Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy.
'The Issue with Antiquity' is that 'Antiquity' never was as it is being taught to us in schools and universities. 'Antiquity' is an inevitable result of creation in XV-XVII centuries of a mythical Classical Age by misdating mediaeval events by hundreds and thousands of years as very ancient ones. That is why 'Antiquity' is being taught in junior forms. Kids just love tales, don' add the things up and ask teachers some awkward questions. The author dissects every historical age and analyses the data from every source imaginable – concensual chronology take a good beating, and it goes rapidly downhill from there. The material of 'The Issue with Antiquity' book crowns scores of years of meticulous and extensive research performed by the eminent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues.' This book is also the 5th volume in History: Fiction or Science? e-series, the fundamental oeuvre that exposes and expounds the numerous inveracities of the traditional version of history.
The e-series 'History: Fiction or Science?' contains data and conclusions that aren’t anything short of revolutionary. The alternatives offered to classical history are stunning, unorthodox to the extent of being labelled heretical by virtually every scholar of history, and daring enough to be considered preposterous at first sight, although this impression never lasts longer than it takes one to read a few pages attentively.
- Sales Rank: #571995 in eBooks
- Published on: 2015-07-22
- Released on: 2015-07-22
- Format: Kindle eBook
Most helpful customer reviews
15 of 16 people found the following review helpful.
Imaginary Numbers
By Arch Stanton
For people who don't know what these books are (ie. those who are sensible non-Russian adults) you're looking at the dry scholarly tomes of a mathematician who decided he didn't care fore the unimportance of Russia throughout ancient history and decided that this meant all history must be all wrong. Now I'm not dissing the Russians here. These ideas were rightly dismissed by Russian experts decades ago, except for the occasional eccentric mathematician and celebrity. That's why he's searching for a new audience: his books have sold just about as much as they ever will in Russia.
These books are a statistician's attempt to combat established history using page after endless page of charts and diagrams in the hope that people won't actually check through all these figures. At fifteen volumes in length it's a fairly safe bet, even though these books are extremely short (this one's only about 91 pages long, though it claims to be 362). But what's really amazing is how little digging it actually takes to find the repeated and obvious errors in his work. The man is so certain that he must be right that he sees no problem with forcibly altering the facts to fit his "theory" or accepting huge margins of error when seeking a parallelism.
You don't even have to wait for the book to begin for the errors to creep in. The title alone presents a false dichotomy. Fiction or Science? As if those are the only two options. And I have no doubt that Fomenko does indeed see it that way given his haughty dismissal of anything even loosely connected to the Arts. History is too close to the Arts and must be purged of anything that isn't a string of exact, quantifiable numbers. All similar number strings must be combined into the same string, and any "facts" or "historical personages" attached to those numbers must be purged as well. Nice, clean math. But it's more disturbing than just that. These books are a vast horde of Russian nationalic propaganda. Apart from ridiculing any non-Scientists (AKA those unqualified to form proper conclusions) the main goal of these books is to establish that Russia ruled all the world from North America through Europe into China and the Middle East, and they did so for most of recorded history. So his two assumptions about the world are:
1. All Non-Scientists are either liars or idiots.
2. Everything in the world originated in Russia.
One of these two assumptions is underlying every single one of his conclusions. He treats his random and unsupported speculations with just as much respect as ones that have been established through years of research backed by hard evidence. All Arts and Humanities subjects are regarded as worthless as sources of information and aren't even worth mentioning unless to state (not argue or prove) that they are wrong.
And now the history of the world as outlined in this book: History begins when Andronicos Comnenos dies and becomes Jesus. History records him as an unsuccessful Greek emperor with no real successes who was beaten to death by the mob and not a poor prophet from Nazareth who was crucified but hey, what do they know. It's not like the crucifixion was an important part of the story or anything. Immediately all of Europe decides that they're Christian and march against the Muslims. It may sound confusing why they'd blame the Muslims for what was an internal coup but they were probably just confused because Mohammed wasn't born yet. At some point they changed their minds and decided to skip the first three crusades and jump straight onto the Fourth (except that they didn't. It was actually the same as the First. Obviously. Please try and keep up). They then sacked Constantinople which was also Rome which was Troy which was Jerusalem. At some point they get confused and occupied the Holy Land as well and then forget all about Constantinople and let it fall back to the Greeks since Jerusalem was now Constantinople which was Troy which was Rome. People back then had very short memories often forgetting why they did something before they even did it. This is probably due to their lack of statisticians. During the First Crusade the Greeks decide to avenge the kidnapping of their queen by... also sacking Constantinople. After sacking their own city they quietly vanish for a few years, probably in embarrassment. Some time later Erasmus wrote the New Testament confusing generations of scholars who wondered what they had been copying out for all that time. Having now written a New Testament it was decided that they needed an Old one. I'm sure the reasons for the reversed order are as obvious to everyone else as they are to Fomenko. Some time in the 15th Century David rose up, except that he was Turkish and ruled in Constantinople. Despite the many wars with the Turks Europe had never warred with the Turks and accepted all of these events as holy writ. After all, the Turks were really Russian in funny hats and the Russians ruled the world. The Byzantines were secretly ruling in England. After the death of Solomon (Suleimon) the Jews split off from Christianity because they were tired of not being persecuted because of something they didn't do and decided that being hunted by the Inquisition was more fun. In the confusion the Catholics and Orthodox Christians split apart as well because everyone else was doing it and it seemed a good idea at the time. They were to regret this later when the Catholics sacked their city but that had already happened so it was fine.
It turns out that Russia has dominated the world since the earliest recorded history (what a shock!). The Mongols were not from Mongolia because the people there are nothing but worthless servants of the Russian Empire (it's ok. Fomenko assures us that the Mongols never knew of Genghis Khan until some pesky monks told them that they used to rule the world). Russia was actually the major Empire that the Romans were based off of and has existed since the dawn of civilization. Silly Georgians thinking they are anything but the personal property of Russia! Ha ha. They also controlled America, Europe and North Africa by 1300 so I guess that we should all submit to the Russian yoke as is our hereditary duty. Occasionally a czar would allow the governors of Europe (kings hah!) to wage war on each other if they pleased him. Presumably the English sucked up to him better than France which is why they did so well in the Hundred Years War but then lost his favor again which resulted in the French winning. Joan of Arc was probably the czar's sister or something. The czar could summon anyone to his court and they had to obey which is why Moscow is renowned the world over as being filled with better artwork and architecture than such dives as Paris and Rome (which isn't the REAL Rome after all). After Russia fell in the 1600s (through internal troubles. No one could EVER conquer Russians) the rest of the world immediately conspired to hide that they ever existed lest they should try to rule over them again. Thus they erased this empire from the history books and replaced it with such lies as Rome and the Holy Roman Empire (couldn't they even pick a new name? Obvious!). Thus the treacherous Romanovs rose to power (did I mention that he first published this under the Soviets?) and they too decided to forget there had ever been a Russian Empire of such a scale. Many "Roman" documents are simply Russian ones with a few name changes. Latin is merely a corrupted form of church Slavonic, despite bearing no similarity to that language. The Russians probably invented it to confuse future generations of schoolkids. They had after all had it engraved all over the southern part of their empire on specific styles of buildings which they immediately buried and built medieval cities on top of to confuse archaeologists. It never showed up in Russia itself. Perhaps they punished the provinces by making them write everything in Latin. Oh those cruel Russians. After the late 18th Century things begin to return to what is normally called history.
As you can see it is far less confusing than the 'conventional' timeline. You might think I'm making this up but that is what you get when you put all his history together. Minus the sarcasm perhaps.
Finally we've reached the parallelisms, the core of his argument. This is when things finally start to make sense right? Right?!? Well, this section is certainly informative, I'll give it that. It shows exactly how far Fomenko is willing to go. His basic argument is that regnal lists from different periods in history line up too precisely and must be duplicates. Therefore these kings have been duplicated and are actually the same person. Sounds a logical proposition, right? Umm, well it is at least a testable theory.
I really hope this book isn't representative of the operation of Russian academia. Facts don't fit your model? Numbers not adding up right? Don't worry about it! We can just make up some new ones and that'll make it all better. To show you what I mean I present his chronology of the early and late Roman emperors (for no apparent reason labelled the second and third Roman empires) along with added comments and corrected dates. Misspelled names are corrected in []:
Sulla, ruled four years (82-78 BC)
Aurelian, ruled 5 years (270-275 AD)
-Sulla became dictator in 82 and resigned in 81 (1 year)
-Correct (5 years)
Strife, less than one year (78-77 BC)
Strife, less than one year (275-276 AD)
-No Strife at all (0 years)
-Tacitus was emperor, though not for long (I'll give him his 1 year)
Sertorius, 6 years (78-72 BC)
Probus, 6 years (276-282 AD)
-Famous Roman rebel in Spain. Did NOT rule Rome. Active from 83-72 (Active 11 years. Ruled Rome 0 years)
-Correct (6 years)
Strife, 2 years (72-71 BC)
Strife, 2 years (282-284 AD)
-Spartacus Rebellion 73-71 (3 years)
-Carus ruled. No strife (Actually 0 years)
Pompey the Great, 21 years (70-49 BC)
Diocletian the Divine(?), 21 years (284-305 AD)
-Pompey was never unopposed. Spent most of his time at war (Influential for 21 years)
-Diocletian had colleagues. Only sole ruler for 2 years (Co-ruled for 21 years)
Joint rule of Pompey and Caesar (first triumvirate), 11 years (60-49 BC)
Joint rule of Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus (first tetrarchy), 12 years (293-305 AD)
-Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had loose alliance from 60 on. The reason that it's called a triumvirate is that there were three of them. trio=three viri=men. It was never an official term. Crassus died in 53 (7 years)
-Diocletian ruled with Maximian from 286, Constantius and Galerius from 293. All ruled at same time. There was also never a second tetrarchy (Ruled with Maximian 19 years)
Strife, 4 years (49-45 BC)
Strife, 4 years (305-309 AD)
-Civil War lasted from 52-46 (6 years)
-Relative peace. More damningly nothing happened in 309 to validate a change from strife to non-strife. The date is chosen simply to match the first one (0 years)
Julius Caesar, the conqueror of first triumvirate, 1 year (45-44 BC)
Constantius Chlorus, the conqueror of first tetrarchy, 1 year (305-306 AD)
-Caesar had been ruling since at least 48. Held Rome since 52. And he never conquered the triumvirate since he was in it (4-8 years)
-Chlorus only just promoted to Augustus. Again, there only ever WAS one tetrarchy. And Constantius was a tetrarch till he died (1 year)
Triumvirate, 17 years (44-27 BC)
Tetrarchy, 18 years (306-324 AD)
-Antony dead by 30. Who were the other two triumvirs supposed to be? (Octavian unopposed 14 years)
-Tetrarchy died when Constantine killed Maxentius in 312 (6 years)
Augustus, the conqueror of the second triumvirate, 41 years (27 BC-14 AD) or 37 years (23 BC-14 AD)
Constantine, the conqueror of the second tetrarchy, 31 years (306-307[337?] AD) or 24 years (313-337) or 13 years (324-337) where 324 marks the death of Licinius
-Killed Antony in 30, but if he counts the period of co-rule with Constantine they why not with Augustus who ruled (or co-ruled) from 44 BC-14 AD? (58 years including co-rule. 44 sole rule)
-Doesn't the fact that he can have three different sets of dates for the same event, none of which match Augustsus, kind of show you how seriously messed up his process is? (31 years including co-rule. 13 years sole rule)
Please note what he does here. Constantine overlaps with the last one but Augustus doesn't. He's just removed 17 years without comment. You'll see more of that in a bit
The birth of Jesus Christ in the 27th year of Augustus (0 AD)
The birth of St. Basil the Great (the Great King) in the 27th year of Constantine (330 AD)
-Probably off (Herod died in 2 BC) but it is the traditional date.
-No way. Basil was born in 303. Constantine was still serving under Diocletian at that time. Also, "The Great King"? Where does that come from?
Tiberius, 23 years (14-17[37] AD)
Constantius II, 24 years (337-361 AD) or 21 years (340-361)
-Correct (23 years)
-Correct (24 years)
Struggle between Tiberius and Germanicus, 13 years (6-19 AD)
Struggle between Constantius II and Constance[Constans], 13 years (337-350 AD)
-Germanicus rose to command in 14. Tiberius didn't rule till 14 either (5 years)
-Constans is correct but he left out third brother Constantine II (13 years)
Caligula, 4 years (37-41 AD)
Julian, 2 years (361-363 AD)
-True (4 years)
-True (2 years)
Strife, less than one year (41 AD)
Strife, less than one year (363 AD)
-Claudius succeeded immediately after. No "Strife" (0 years)
-The "Strife" was Jovian's rule which he will list later (1 years)
Claudius, 13 years (41-54 AD)
Valentinian, 11 years (364-375 AD)
-True (13 years)
-True (11 years)
Joint rule of Claudius and Pallantius within the "triumvirate", not more than 13 years (41-54 AD)
Joint rule of Valentinian and Valens within the "triumvirate", 11 years (367-375)
-Pallantius never ruled. Also, there was no triumvirate after Augustus. Fomenko has no idea what he's talking about (0 years)
-Valens ruled from 364. Not sure why he changed it. 14 years is closer to 13 than 11 (14 years)
Nero, 14 years (54-68)
Valens, 14 years (364-378)
-True (14 years)
-True, but remember: Valens was only co-ruler. And a junior one at that (14 years)
Joint rule of Nero with Burrus and Seneca, 8 years (54-62)
Joint rule of Valens with Valentinian and Gratian, 11 years (364-375)
-Burrus and Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until after this time (0 years) Finally, a Match!
Joint rule of Nero and Seneca, 11 years (54-65)
Joint rule of Valens and Gratian, 11 years (367-378)
-Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until 375 (3 years)
Galba, 1 year (68-69)
Jovian, 1 year (363-364)
-True (1 year)
-I can't help but notice that Galba came after Nero while Jovian came before Valens. He's changing the order of dates again to make them fit. Also, he already listed Jovian's reign under a period of "strife" earlier (1 year)
Strife, less than 1 year (69)
Strife, less than 1 year (378)
-True, though it lasted MORE than one year (1 year)
-True, though again, it lasted MORE than one year. Gothic War not ended until 382 (4 years)
Two Vespasians, 12 years (69-81)
Gratian and Valentinian II (after the death of Valens), 13 years (379-392)
-True (12 years)
-Gratian died in 383 (4 years)
Domitian, 15 years (81-96)
Theodosius the Great, 16 years (379-395)
-True (15 years)
-True, though please note the comparison. Domitian was a persecutor while Theodosius was THE Orthodox Christian ruler after Constantine. Is this comparison one that Christian authors would wish to make? (16 years)
Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-True (2 years)
-Eugenius isn't an emperor and 'rules' during Theodosius' rule. Date fudging again (0 years)
Joint rule of Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Joint rule of Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-What's the point of listing them twice?
Trajan, 19 years (98-117) or 16 years (101-117)
Arcadius, 13 years (395-408)
-The first dates are true. Nerva died in 98 so why Fomenko would be confused I don't know. Probably because he wants to throw the dates into doubt (19 years)
-Arcadius was co-ruler with his brother Honorius (13 years)
Adrian[Hadrian], 21 years (117-138)
Honorius, 28 years (395-423)
-True (21 years)
-Honorius was co-ruler with his brother Arcadius so he can't be matched with Hadrian who succeeded Trajan (28 years, but when brother's years are removed only 9 years)
Antoninus Pius, 23 years (138-161)
Aetius, 21 years (423-444) or 14 years (423-438)
-True (23 years)
-Aetius wasn't emperor, didn't 'rule' until 430s. and was the most important man in the state until he died in 454 (0 years)
Marcus Aurelius, 19 years (161-180)
Valentinian III, 18 years (437-455) or or 11 years (444-455)
-True (19 years)
-Valentinian ruled since 425. Please note he's counted as co-ruling with Aetius. More date fudging (30 years)
Commodus, 16 years (176-192) or 12 years (180-192)
Recimer [Ricimer], 16 years (456-472)
-Ruled after 180 (12 years)
Ricimer never ruled (0 years)
Pertinax, less than 1 year (193)
Olybrius, less than 1 year (472)
-True (1 year)
-True, but skipped over 5 other emperors (1 year)
Didinus[Didius] Julianus, less than 1 year (193)
Glycerius, less than 1 year (473,474)
-Didius Julianus lasted 2 months (1 year)
Clodius Albinus, less than 1 year (193)
Julius Nepos, less than 1 year (474)
-Usurper who never gained recognition. Lasted til 197 (4 years if you count it. 0 if you don't)
-Ruled just over 1 year (1 year)
Pescennius Niger, 1 year (193-194)
Romulus Augustulus, 1 year (475-476)
-Usurper who never gained recognition (1 year if you count it)
-True (1 year)
Septimius Severus, 18 years (193-211)
Odoacer, 17 years (476-493)
-True (18 years)
-True, but not a Roman. Empire fell with Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was a Goth (17 years)
Caracalla, 24 years (193-217) or 6 years (211-217)
Theodoricor[Theodoric] the Great, 29 years (497-526) or 33 years (493-526)
-Ruled after 211. technically co-ruled after 209 but certainly wasn't doing any ruling in 193 at the age of five (6 years)
-The later date is correct. Still not a Roman though. Gothic king of Italy (33 years)
Note that in that entire chart there are only 4 that match exactly (Including the periods of "strife") and a few others that come close. Please also note that the period from 82 BC to 217 AD is 299 years long while the period from 270 to 526 is 256. So somewhere in a span of less than 300 years he managed to lose 43 of them. That's 1/6 the total years he's dealing with. Yet if you look at his chart the length matches almost exactly. That should tell you a lot about how precise he's being.
A moment's glance should tell anyone how lethal this is to his argument. If he's arguing that the standard regnal lengths are too precisely similar to be a coincidence then he needs to use those same regnal lengths. He can't just make them up or he's just showing a similarity between two imaginary numbers of his own invention.
But it gets even worse than this though. Fomenko actually claims to see patterns in the emperors being "duplicated". He helps himself here by creating an arbitrary start date. Sulla was neither the first nor last to seize sole power in the Republic and Aurelian was but the forerunner to Diocletian's reformed Empire. So what reason could Fomenko have for choosing to start with them? They're matched because both were remembered for their cruelty. How clever. Bravo good sir. Well done. Find two people renowned for their cruelty and force them to merge into one. That's exactly the kind of wooly thinking I've come to expect from these books. As usual Fomenko has forced a parallel without mentioning that he's changing things around to do so. Ignoring the fact that Aurelian's reputation for cruelty comes from the Historia Augusta, which is almost as pseudo-historical as this work, the simple fact of the matter is that the two have basically nothing else in common. Sulla's reforms vanished within a decade of his (natural) death while Aurelian's paved the way for his more successful successor Diocletian. Following this we again see Fomenko's number fudging. The use of Strife to cover any periods that don't match is the most obvious one. Another is the use of Sertorius as a counterpoint to Probus. Probus was indeed a 3rd Century emperor but Sertorius was a Roman rebel, albeit a famous and not wholly despised one. Given the number of Roman armies sent against him it seems hard to believe that he was ruling Rome from all the way over in Spain.
Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus are also radically altered. Again Fomenko has distorted the facts to make it fit by removing participants. Diocletian had three colleagues not merely one. What's more Constantius wasn't his main colleague but merely his junior partner. Maximian was Diocletian's partner in government and he ruled not from 293-305 but from 286. But using him would throw Fomenko's calculation off, especially given how much importance he gives to Constantius. He calls Constantius Caesar's double even though he did nothing to merit such a comparison. When Diocletian resigns he lists one of his periods of strife and says that Constantius conquers the Tetrarchy as Caesar conquers the Triumvirate. Both are wrong but to focus on Constantius all that he does to conquer the tetrarchy is die. Within a year of Diocletian's resignation he's dead so how he's able to posthumously conquer the tetrarchy is beyond me. Inasmuch as the tetrarchy was destroyed not conquered (which may be a translation issue) it was done by Constantius' son Constantine who spent not four years but twenty changing the tetrarchy into a monarchy. As for Caesar he didn't conquer or even destroy the triumvirate. It was never a formal system. When Crassus died in 53 and Pompey refused to grant Caesar a consulship in 50 the alliance ended. If anyone 'conquered' it it was Pompey who maintained his authority by denying Caesar protection from his enemies. So while I suppose Constantine could be compared to Caesar his father can't which ruins Fomenko's 'theory' by throwing the dates off. An amusing association is between Caligula and Julian. Caligula was a well-known sadistic tyrant (although Fomenko says little is known of him) while Julian was an (over)educated man who tried to bring paganism back. But of course they're the same person because they both wore the military sandals (caligae) which gave Caligula his name. The fact that all Roman Emperors wore such sandals while on campaign is skimmed over. So just to be clear: all the most important figures bear no resemblance to their supposed double, and the few similarities he can find are too facile to mean anything.
A few of my favorite examples from his more detailed comparison:
Both Augustus and Constantine relied on the military to get them into power.
Good point Dr. Fomenko. Good point...
"Belisarius is a military leader. Justinian is an emperor. The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel.
Caesar is a military leader. Pompey is a number one public figure. Friends initially, foes eventually.
Achilles is a military leader. Agamemnon is the 'principal royalty'. Friends at first, enemies afterwards.
Valerius is a military leader, while Tarquin the Proud is the 'main king'. Hostile in the beginning; mortal enemies afterwards." (page 195)
Now let me try one: General McChrystal is a military leader. President Obama is a 'president.' The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel. Hey, that's kinda fun! Good thing there can't possibly be more than one person that vague and unconvincing comparison could describe.
And my personal favorite: "Second Empire. A while ago Tiberius was adopted by Octavian Augustus. Tiberius is known to have died being 'strangled with blankets.' In a sense, this death may be considered unexpected.
Third Empire. Constantius II is the son of Constantine I. Constantius II, as historians tell us, 'died unexpectedly.'"
Death by blankets is 'unexpected' now? What gives? Seriously, how a dying 78 year old man being hurried to his death can be compared with a 44 year old man dying of an illness in the prime of life is beyond me.
So now you see the problems with his comparisons. They're either hopelessly vague or they take one case and force it to fit another. So basically what Fomenko has shown is that human life is repetitive. Even that he can't do without messing with the evidence. And speaking of the evidence, there is something seriously wrong with his way of footnoting. In the bibliography at the back he assigns every book a number and then uses that number in the text. I don't know if that's standard for Russian Mathematical works but it certainly isn't for English historical ones. Or French ones. Or German ones.. Or Italian ones... And there's a good reason no one uses it, it's confusing. You have to go all the way to the back of the book and scroll through hundreds of books to find the one you want, only to find that it's in Russian anyway and hasn't been updated since before the Russian Revolution. There are actually a large number like that. 767 is from 1938 which makes it relatively new. I guess he didn't want to use any books he hadn't already read in childhood. This sourcing method is really frustrating when he gives non-standard citations for standard sources. For example: Plutarch. Fomenko states that Plutarch calls Sulla an Emperor. Since such an office didn't exist in the Republic I decided to look up what word he was mistaking for 'Emperor.' But the citation is this: ([660], Vol. 2, pages 137-138). If you look that up in the Bibliography you find: Plutarch, Comparative Biographies, Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961. Since I don't read Russian I have no way of finding that page. This is why proper historians use chapters and verse (like the Bible) to identify their sources. These don't vary with the translations. And while it's hard to judge from a title, that book doesn't sound like it's in Greek. Which means that he's basing his statement about a technical term on a book that translated that technical term for him. The point is that I can't check up on it since he does such a bad job with his sources.
This is entirely in keeping with Fomenko's bias and standards of evidence. Brutus is associated with a whole slew of people because Fomenko decides his name comes from 'brat' which means brother. The problem is that 'brat' is a RUSSIAN word meaning brother. He passes by that without question but he's basically assuming that Russian is the originator of all languages. That would be like me claiming Caesar was a sailor since his name is similar to the word 'sea.' It is decidedly typical of Fomenko's extreme nationalistic agenda to assume that everything revolves around the Russians. A minor example of his standards, but an amusing one for me, is his statement that Caesar was called Emperor on coins decades before that office even existed. This is particularly amusing for me since Caesar BECAME the word for emperor as did Augustus after his successor. The Romans never really developed a word for Emperor outside of using those two names. It'd be like claiming that Martin Luther King can't have been from the '60s since America wasn't a monarchy at that time. This is the same question I asked above from his references to Plutarch. The word he's probably referring to though is Imperator which means general, not Emperor. Eventually the Emperors would associate that word so strongly with their power that it would become impossible to untangle it but that was centuries in the future. Another possibility is that it refers to the title of princeps which means the first man of the state. While Augustus made that title a permanent feature of Imperial titulature it originally meant exactly what it said. The leader of the senate had been called the princeps senatus for ages. For Plutarch the options are autocrator (Greek for Imperator), Sebastocrator (Augustus), Kaisar (Caesar), or basileos (king). Since he doesn't say which word it is all that can be done is guess. Fomenko's Latin is apparently as bad as his translator's English.
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful.
Don't waste your time (or money).
By Curtis Hinsley
Total nonsense.
2 of 6 people found the following review helpful.
Awkward Ideas
By bonda
Benedictine Monks invented and perfected Roman and Greek languages wrote the whole literature of ancient Rome and Greece in XIV-XVII centuries. During the same period teams of artists from Rome and Florence have mass produced antique artifacts. Demand for 'ancient' artifacts from Holland, England and France was good, supply from Italy and Spain was adequate. Those were not the Renaissance, but Naissance times. Fancy 'ancient' sounding names 'proved' the authenticity of goods delivered.
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy PDF
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy EPub
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy Doc
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy iBooks
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy rtf
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy Mobipocket
The Issue with Antiquity. (History; Fiction or Science? Book 5), by Anatoly Fomenko, Gleb Nosovskiy Kindle
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar