Commentary of 2013 year. The present paper was written in 1992-1993 years. Then, as a result of our new research, some corrections were made. The final version of our results about English history is presented in the book: Anatoly T.Fomenko, Gleb V.Nosovskiy. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 4. - Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2007.
For the general exposition of our chronological results see the following English books:
1) Anatoly T.Fomenko. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 1. - Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2003.
2) Anatoly T.Fomenko. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 2. - Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2005.
3) Anatoly T.Fomenko, Tatiana N.Fomenko, Vladimir V.Kalashnikov, Gleb V.Nosovskiy. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 3. – Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2007.
4) Anatoly T.Fomenko, Gleb V.Nosovskiy. "History: Fiction or Science?". Chronology 4. - Delamere Publishing, Paris, London, New York, 2007.
This article is devoted to the investigation of traditional version of English chronology and English history. It should be mentioned that this tradition was established only in 16-17th cc.(and especially by Scaliger and Petavius) as a result of attempts to construct the global chronology of Europe and Asia at that time.
The results of our investigation show that modern version of English history (which is in fact a slightly modernized version of 16-17th cc.), was artificially prolonged backward and became much more long as it was in reality. The real history of England, as it was reflected in written documents, was much more short. The same is true for other countries.
In correct version, ancient and medieval English events are to be transferred to the epoch which begins from 11-12th cc. Moreover, many of these events prove to be the reflections of certain events from real Byzantine-Roman-Russian history of 11-16th cc. Consequently, the Great Britain Empire is a direct successor of medieval Byzantine/Mongolian Empire.
This effect for English history corresponds to the similar "shortening effects" for traditional histories of other countries (Italy, Greece, Egypt, Russia etc.). Such effects were discovered earlier by the authors (see our previous publications). A discussion of the whole problem of global chronology and a history of this problem one can find in ,. English history is not an exemption from the "rule".
We do not think that all speculations which are suggested here are final ones. Surely, they are subject to further corrections and clarification. Nevertheless, the general concept is quite clear and seems to be a final one.
The aim of present work is only to present main points of our new version of reconstruction of the real English history.
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum"
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum". "Histoires of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth"
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles
2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic streams"
2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D. England as the Roman colony
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830. Six kingdoms and their union
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. The epoch is finished by Danish conquest and then by disintegration of Dutch kingdom in England
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066. Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon dynasty and it's fall
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327. Norman dynasty and after it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards
2.3.7. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.
3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England from one side and medieval Byzantine empire from another side. General concept of correspondence between English and Byzantine histories
3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and Byzantine history 378-553 A.D. 275-year shift
3.3.2. English history of 800-1040 and Byzantine history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift
3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and Byzantine history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift
4.1. Our new concept of English history
4.2. In which way the Byzantine/Mongolian chronicles were inserted into the medieval English history (of the island Anglia)?
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain (and the first king of Britts)
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a contemporary of Julius Caesar?
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem of vowels restoration
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical localizations
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and England were located on islands?
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain = Albania?
5.11. Who were scots in 11-13th cc.A.D. and were did they live? Where was Scotland located in 11-13th cc.A.D.?
5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in 11-13th cc.A.D.?
5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many geographical terms
5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066 A.D. The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.
5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine empire have the same origin
5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story
5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's conqueror
5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from Byzantine and English chronicles
5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to Galats and who they were?