4. CORRECT ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH MORE DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new concept of English history
The answer follows definitely from the above parallelism and from the Fig.1b . Naturally, the more new dynasty (one which was later in time) is to be supposed as original one. This is a Byzantine dynasty 1143-1453 A.D. It was denoted above as Byzantine empire-3. In [1],[24] it was discovered that Byzantine empire-3 is a source of information for it's reflections Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1 and Byzantine empire-2. Roughly speaking the whole Byzantine history is constructed from several blocks - duplicates of the same epoch: 1143-1453 A.D. As we discovered, English history being stringed to the English kings dynasty is a duplicate of Byzantine history up to 1327 A.D. (in English chronology) = 1450 A.D. (in Byzantine chronology). Middle of 15th century was a time from which we have enough information, so Byzantine dynasty of that time was surely a real one. It suggests that Byzantine is an original in above parallelism, and England before 1327 A.D. - a reflection. It could be seen from the Fig.1a , Fig.1b how English history before 1327 A.D. was constructed from several reflections of Byzantine Empire of 1143-1453 A.D. As we have shown in the book: Anatoly T.Fomenko, Gleb V.Nosovskiy. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 4. - Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2007, - the history of England duplicates that of Byzantium and the Great = "Mongolian" Empire of the 14-16 century. Medieval English history up to 1327 comprises several duplicates of the Byzantine epoch of 1142-1453, or the "Mongolian" epoch of the 14-16 century. As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved in [1],[24], [34], [35], [36], [37], that Roman history of that time reflects real events that took place in the "Mongolian" Empire around the 13-16 century A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real Byzantine events of the 13-15 century A.D. and the history of Great = "Mongolian" Empire of the 13-16 century.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real events of the 13-15 century A.D. and the history of Great = "Mongolian" Empire of the 14-16 century.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-3 and therefore they reflect real events of the 13-15 century A.D., or the history of Great = "Mongolian" Empire of the 14-16 century. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch before the beginning of 14 century, are in fact devoted to certain periods of Byzantine history of 12-15th century, as well as the Great = "Mongolian" Empire in the 14-16 century. Roughly speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine and "Mongolian" chronicles which were taken from Byzantine and Russia-Horde to England and then modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in England.
6) The time when written history of the island which is today called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of 11-12th centuries. Now we have only very few information about that early period of English history on the island. So the description of English history of 11-13 cc. is in fact rather fragmentary. But this information about real island events was then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire and Russia-Horde (i.e. from Great = "Mongolian" Empire). The resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Mongolian/Byzantine fiber" we can see now as the English history of 11-14th cc.
7) Starting from 16-17th century English history speaks about real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional version of English history becomes correct from 16-17th c.
One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological details about, for example, how many years there were between the Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern historical version. See [1],[24], [34], [35], [36], [37].
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have today, were finally edited only in 16-18th cc. And it was exactly the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the traces of chronological computations of 16-17th cc. At that time historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their (medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work of only one medieval chronological school. It was the chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by Roman-Catholic church.
Often, astronomical calculations were used for chronological purposes. In this case there could be certain astrological motivations in medieval astronomical calculations for chronology. Medieval scientists, and historians among them, often trusted astrology and could use it in their considerations. Maybe medieval astrologers tried to solve problems like these: what was the planetary configuration at the moment of coronation of Justinian I (or when ancient lunar eclipses occurred etc.)? Results of such astronomical calculations of 16-17th cc. could be placed in ancient texts to make their chronology more clear. It was large work and it might be very useful if the calculations were correct. Unfortunately, medieval astronomers and historians made a lot of mistakes. These mistakes are discussed in [1],[24]. As a result of such mistakes, ancient chronicles got an incorrect chronological skeleton. This incorrect chronology was then supported by church authorities and by medieval scientific schools. It was the chronology which we have now in our textbooks. And today, our contemporaries - the historians and chronologists - take the ancient chronicles (from archives) and with pleasure discover in them the "astronomical and chronological information".
Then, basing on the modern theory, they date the described eclipses, horoscopes (i.e., the configuration of the planets along the zodiacal constellations). After this, historians discover (with great pleasure) that sometimes these records from "ancient chronicles" satisfy to the Scaliger's chronology (and, consequently, are correct). Of course, sometimes there are some contradictions. And sometimes - very serious. The real explanation is as follows: the medieval methods for calculations were more rough that modern ones. Then in each such case the modern chronologists "correct" these "records of ancient chronicler". As a result, they form the illusion of the correctness of traditional Scaliger's version of ancient chronology. But what the modern historians really do when the results of modern astronomical calculations sharply disagree with Scaliger's chronology? As we know today (see, for example, [1],[24]) the list of such contradictions is very long. This fact shows that Scaliger's chronological version is wrong. But in all such cases the modern historians start to speak (with a great irritation and displeasure) about "ignorance of ancient observers and chroniclers", about "impossibility to apply the modern scientific methods to the analysis an ancient texts" etc.
The visual picture of our chronological conjecture you can see in the Fig.6.
Fig.6
4.2. In which way the Byzantine/Mongolian chronicles were inserted into medieval English history (of the island Anglia)?
The answer will be extremely simple if we will erase from our minds the picture which is imposed by traditional Scaliger's chronology.
Starting with the 13 century, waves of crusades sweep over Byzantium, their peak falling over the 13 century. The crusaders were avenging the crucifixion of Andronicus, or Christ, in Czar-Grad in 1185. Feudal crusader states of the 13-14 century are founded all across the territory of Byzantium and neighbouring regions. Their inhabitants are a mixture of the local populace and the crusaders from the Western Europe, Russia and Asia. Said regions develop a cultural life of their very own, likewise Byzantium – in particular, this manifests as the compilation of historical chronicles. The early 14 century is the epoch of the Great = "Mongolian" conquest. In 1453, Constantinople falls under the onslaught of the Ottomans = Atamans, originally hailing from Russia, or the Horde. Byzantium is laid waste, and a large part of its population decides to emigrate. Many intellectuals and aristocrats flee to Europe and to lands more distant, including the British Isles. These refugees take the Byzantine historical chronicles with them as priceless mementoes of their past. According to our reconstruction (see [34], [35], [36], [37]), the same epoch of the 14 century marks the conquest of many lands, including the Western Europe, by the Ottomans and the Horde. Britain appears to have been conquered around the same time (see Chron5). We see the foundation of the enormous Great = "Mongolian" Empire. The island of Great Britain becomes an imperial province of the Horde, whose local governors are subordinate to Russia, or the Horde, and the Ottomans. Chronicles writ- ten in Britain around this time reflect the life of the entire Empire and its faraway capital apart from the local events, which were possibly de-emphasised.
After the passage of some time, the inhabitants of the insular Britain begin to write their own history. The "new" history of the "ancient" England gets written in the 16-17 century; this takes place in the course of the Reformation. After the fragmentation of the Great = "Mongolian" Empire in the 16-17 century, historians of the provinces that attain independence begin to write the "new ancient history" of their countries with great haste. In particular, they try to erase the very existence of the Great Empire from the annals of world history. According to the ploy of the rebellious rulers and their court historians, the Empire must be forgotten forever. See Chron6 for more on this "progressive Reformist programme".
A campaign of re-writing and tendentious editing of the old chronicles is launched in England, as well as the Western Europe and the Romanovian Russia. Moreover, after the violent mutiny of the Reformation, many real events of the XIV-XVI were erased from historical memory forever, over the course of several generations. The English Scaligerites of the XVI-XVII century declare the old chronicles of Byzantium, the Horde and the Ottoman Empire, which they edited in accordance with their own agenda. These chronicles serve as basis for the "ancient" his- tory of the actual British Isles. Large parts of Byzantine and "Mongolian" history that had originally pertained to the vast territories of Europe and Asia become transferred (albeit on paper only, obviously enough) to the relatively small territory of the British Isles and their environs. This leads to the inevitable "shrinkage" of many major events. The great and powerful Czars, or Khans, of the Empire, transform into local rulers under the quill of the Scaligerite editors. This leads to a great distortion of historical proportions. The Great = "Mongolian" Empire vanishes from the pages of the "carefully edited" chronicles for centuries to come. Whatever in- formation defies oblivion despite these efforts gets arbitrarily moved backwards in time with the aid of the erroneous chronology, transforming into "ancient myths". This results in the creation of such English chronicles as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Historia Brittonum by Nennius and so on. A while later this recent version of the "ancient" British history rigidifies. Historical research of the 19 and 20 century brings nothing but minor amendments, the addition of new data and new layers of varnish. Nowadays, having dis- covered strange and amazing duplicates inside the "English history textbook" with the aid of statistical methods, we are beginning to realise that the real English history had been a great deal shorter. Our objective can therefore be formulated as the location of Byzantine and "Mongolian" originals inside the Scaligerian version, and the restoration of their true chronological and geographical identity.
Thus, let us repeat, that in 17-18th centuries some qualified historians appear and start to create the general history of the whole land Anglia ("from the beginning"). They search for ancient documents. Suddenly they find several old trunks with "very old" documents. The documents are dusty, the paper is very fragile, and the old books fall to pieces. These chronicles were transported from Byzantine/Mongolian empire. But now (in 17-18th cc.) nobody knew this. Unfortunately, the prehistory of these trunks is forgotten. And, unfortunately, is forgotten that these chronicles describe the history of ANOTHER LAND. The English historians of 17-18th centuries carefully analyse these texts as the history "of island England" and put them into the basis of "old British-island history, which started many centuries ago". After some time this wrong version of an old English history stand stockstill, becomes a "monument". Further historians simply modify (only a little) the initial scheme of the history, add some new documents. And only today, using some statistical and other methods we start to discover some strange regularities inside the "history textbook" and start to realize that the real history was possibly sufficiently shorter and that today we need to remove from the "old English history" its "Byzantine/Mongolian part" and return this piece to its right place (in time and in the geographical sense). This procedure is very painful. We realize this because we discovered the same problem in the old Russian history, when we also found several chronological duplicates.
