Вход    
Логин 
Пароль 
Регистрация  
 
Блоги   
Демотиваторы 
Картинки, приколы 
Книги   
Проза и поэзия 
Старинные 
Приключения 
Фантастика 
История 
Детективы 
Культура 
Научные 
Анекдоты   
Лучшие 
Новые 
Самые короткие 
Рубрикатор 
Персонажи
Новые русские
Студенты
Компьютерные
Вовочка, про школу
Семейные
Армия, милиция, ГАИ
Остальные
Истории   
Лучшие 
Новые 
Самые короткие 
Рубрикатор 
Авто
Армия
Врачи и больные
Дети
Женщины
Животные
Национальности
Отношения
Притчи
Работа
Разное
Семья
Студенты
Стихи   
Лучшие 
Новые 
Самые короткие 
Рубрикатор 
Иронические
Непристойные
Афоризмы   
Лучшие 
Новые 
Самые короткие 
Рефераты   
Безопасность жизнедеятельности 
Биографии 
Биология и химия 
География 
Иностранный язык 
Информатика и программирование 
История 
История техники 
Краткое содержание произведений 
Культура и искусство 
Литература  
Математика 
Медицина и здоровье 
Менеджмент и маркетинг 
Москвоведение 
Музыка 
Наука и техника 
Новейшая история 
Промышленность 
Психология и педагогика 
Реклама 
Религия и мифология 
Сексология 
СМИ 
Физкультура и спорт 
Философия 
Экология 
Экономика 
Юриспруденция 
Языкознание 
Другое 
Новости   
Новости культуры 
 
Рассылка   
e-mail 
Рассылка 'Лучшие анекдоты и афоризмы от IPages'
Главная Поиск Форум

Фоменко, Анатолий - Фоменко - Fomenko, Nosovskij. New chronology and new concept of the english history. British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire

История >> История (наука и гипотезы) >> Фоменко, Анатолий
Хороший Средний Плохой    Скачать в архиве Скачать 
Читать целиком


A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij. New chronology and new concept of the english history. British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire

---------------------------------------------------------------

© Copyright A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij

---------------------------------------------------------------

(SHORT SCHEME)

ABSTRACT



     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 15-17th 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 15-16th 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 9-10th cc. Moreover, many of these events prove to be the reflections of certain events from real Byzantine-Roman history of 9-15th cc. Consequently, the Great Britain Empire is a direct successor of medieval Byzantine 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 [1],[24]. 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.
CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL ENGLISH HISTORY



    2.1. The most old English chronicles


     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


     2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations and

     countries according to ancient English chronicles?


     2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history


     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. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY. GREAT

    BRITAIN EMPIRE AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF MEDIEVAL BYZANTINE-ROMAN

    EMPIRE


     3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams of England and

     Byzantine-Roman empire


     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. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism

     table")


     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. 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


     4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted

     into the medieval English history (of the island

     Anglia)?
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK ABOUT

    REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES


     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?


     5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =

     Albania?


     5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain =

     Albania?


     5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.?


     5.11. Who were scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?

     Where was Scotland located in 10-12th cc.A.D.?


     5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain. Which

     nations used these languages and where did they live

     in 10-12th cc.A.D.?


     5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms

     Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in

     10-12th 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?
REFERENCES


     1. INTRODUCTION


     This work belongs to the scope of investigations carried out by authors in order to give a critical analysis of ancient and medieval chronology, and also - to try a reconstruction of real ancient chronology. The whole history of the problem one can find in A.T.Fomenko's books [1],[24]. In these books some new statistical methods of obtaining true dates for ancient events recorded in old chronicles were suggested. As a result, a new chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern Africa based on a statistical investigation of ancient texts, was suggested in [1],[24]. One also can find there a list of all publications by A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to chronological problems.

     This new concept of global history and chronology confirms some ideas which were expressed by different scientists in 16-20th cc. The most important were ideas of famous Russian scientist N.A.Morozov (1854-1946) who had an extremely wide range of scientific interests in many different branches of natural science and history. Very interesting works devoted to the problems of traditional chronology were written by Isaac Newton, J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.

     As a result of application of statistical methods to historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a "fiber structure" of our modern "textbook in ancient and medieval history". In such a way we will call a modern chronological tradition in history which is expressed in all our textbooks. It was proved that this "textbook" consist of four more short "textbooks" which speak about the same events, the same historical epochs. These short "textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to other on the time axis and then glued together preserving these shifts. The result is our modern "textbook" which shows the history much longer than it was in reality. To be more precise, we speak here only about a "written" history, i.e., such history which left it's traces in written documents which finally, after their certain evolution, we possess today. Of course before it, there was a long "pre-written" history, but information about it is lost.

     Resume is as follows. History which we in principle could learn about today, starts only in 9-10th cc. "A.D." (i.e., 1100-1200 years ago). And the very name "A.D." attached to the era which we use now, is not correct.

     New results concerning the problem of reconstruction of real ancient chronology one can find in two last Fomenko's books [4,5] devoted to history and chronology.

     An important step to the reconstruction of real ancient chronology was made by publication of a book [3] written by A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the true date of compilation of a famous ancient scientific manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was (approximately) determined as a result of statistical analysis of numerical astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is assumed that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In [3] it is proved that the real date of it's compilation belongs to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.

     Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied new statistical methods to Russian history. In Russian history there also were discovered chronological shifts and duplicates. It proves to be very much different from well-known version of Russian history which was suggested in epoch of Romanov dynasty reign in Russia. The book "Chronology and General Concept of Russian History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is being printed (in Russian).

     In 1992-1993 authors recognized that the history of development of English chronology and English history itself is a very interesting and important point in the whole scope of global chronology reconstruction. In our analysis of Russian old documents it was necessary to use also some English documents. And immediately we came upon several such amazing facts that, it become quite clear to us that English history (which is rather "spoiled" in modern "textbook") gives new and important information to the reconstruction of real chronology of Europe and Asia.

     We tried our best to make this work independent from our previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence exists. That is why we recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the whole problem of reconstruction the English history as it as in reality, to look through mentioned above books and scientific publications by authors. We believe that this work is good for the beginning and it could serve as a starting point to the reader. We tried to avoid citation from other our works here (as far as it was possible).

     It is pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander (USA) for her excellent assistance in arranging materials concerning English history. Her energy very much inspired our work on English history.

    We thank T.N.Fomenko for several good ideas which improved some of our results concerning parallels between English and Byzantine history and also for valuable remarks which made this text better.


    2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH HISTORY


     2.1. The most old English chronicles


     2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.


     To understand a material we are going to present here, it would be better if a reader knows main things from English, Roman and Byzantine history. As to Roman and Byzantine history, we assume that it is more or less the case. But old English history is not so generally well-known. That is why we are going to present here a brief review of "English history textbook".

     Surely, we could simply suggest that a reader looks through one of modern books concerned with English history before he reads this paper. But all such books are necessarily the secondary texts which, in fact, copy an information from more old texts and documents devoted to English history. The problem is that this coping proves to be not so good (part of information is lost). That is why we prefer to analyse medieval historical texts themselves rather then modern textbooks, which are based on them. An important advantage of these medieval texts is that they were written more close to the time of creation of now traditional global chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one). Our experience says that an information about old history was been lost while publishing new and new textbooks from that time up to now. Medieval texts are more valuable for reconstruction of real history.

     Our analysis was based mostly on three famous medieval English chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" [9]. In fact, these texts form a basis for modern concept of old and medieval English history.

     Also we used well-known "Chronological Tables" which were compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of 19th c. These fundamental tables cover all historical epochs which seemed important to experts in the end of 19th century.

    Now it is assumed that so-called "legendary" English history started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in 12-13th cc. B.C. Nevertheless a 1000-year period from Trojan war to the epoch of Julius Caesar (1st c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark time".

     From the time of creation and establishment of modern chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and D.Petavius in 16-17th cc.) it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But it is known today that documents speak about English history only from approximately 1 A.D., i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It was the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its records ([2], p.4).

     The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle consists of several separate manuscripts:


     Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle

     (60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),

     Manuscript B: The Abigdon Chronicle I

     (A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),

     Manuscript C: The Abigdon Chronicle II

     (60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),

     Manuscript D: The Worcester Chronicle

     (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079),

     (with twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),

     Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle

     (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),

     Manuscript F: The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome

     (A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).


     It is well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate each other in the sense that they all speak about the same events, but in more or less details. That is why all they are placed in the publication [2] parallel to each other in a very convenient manner, which makes it easy to compare different records concerning the same year. Maybe, all these manuscripts have the same written original and in fact represent different scripts of one old chronicle.

    Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th century (except manuscript E which stops in 1153).

     It is traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts were written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in the form which we have today. But it is only a hypothesis which is strongly based on the Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very natural. For example, manuscript A exists now only in two "copies" and both of them were made only in 16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original version (from which these two copies were made) was practically burned out in a fire. As to other manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, their history is not clear from [2]. For example, it is not pointed out what were the methods of determining of dates when existing copies were made. One could have an idea that the dating was as follows: if last records of these manuscripts refer to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now posses are necessarily written just in that form in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other objections, we must say that this speculation in fully based on Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last mentioned events change, then such dating of a manuscript would also change.

     Difficulties with reconstruction of a true story for origin of these manuscripts are well-known among experts. For example David Knowles had to claim that:

     "The question of provenance and interdependence of the various versions [of the Chronicle] are so complicated that any discussion soon assumes the appearance of an essay in higher mathematics" ([2],p.xxxi).

     Moreover, G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles Plummer's revision (1892-1899) of it's original edition published by John Earle in 1865. It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again "associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with certain persons from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop Laud (1573-1645). Here is his text:

     "Any account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based on Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John Earle (1865) which was published in two volumes by the Oxford University Press in 1892-9... Plummer's edition... gives prominence on opposite pages to manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with the names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and Archbishop Laud (1573-1645);...The other manuscripts were once in the possession of Sir Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are to be found in the Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the British Museum"([2],p.xxxi).

     It seems that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle which are available today were actually written (or revised) not earlier than in 15-16th centuries. However, they are considered to be written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the only reason for such point of view is that traditional dates of the last events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch: 11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is possible that events from 11-12th cc. were described by somebody in 15-16th cc. and we actually possess his secondary text which could be very far from an original version. And also, the dates of events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle strongly depend on a used chronological concept. If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle would change automatically.

     There is a strong argument which suggests that manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather late origin. The problem is that all these manuscripts use modern "A.D." era which came into regular practical use only in 15th century. It is a known fact in traditional history. Later we will also present some facts which suggest that the authors of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle were already familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological concept (16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological concept of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written much later then it is usually accepted.

     The reason for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great attention in our reconstruction of English history is very simple. It turns out that

     "Thanks to the example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first history written in English to use his mastery innovation of reckoning years as from the Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of Grace" as they were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).

    Concerning the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted that in medieval England they used for "A.D." era the following formula: "Years from the Incarnation of Our Lord". It is accepted today that this formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of Grace". But this equivalence in not so evident and requires a special investigation. (We will return to this subject later and discuss it in more details). Note that there is a strange similarity between two well-known names-terms

     Grace - Greece.

     Maybe the original (and forgotten today) meaning of a formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is accepted today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something like this. It is possible also that there is a relation between terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of Christ associated in some sense with a name of country "Greece"? For example Christ religion = "Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and another it's name was Romea, Rome. So Christian, "Roman" religion could be called also as "Greek religion"; but if so then there might be a confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old "Greek", Byzantine era which was used sometimes, as well as "A.D.", with it's thousands omitted. It could be not obvious which era was actually used in an old documents which indicate "Years of Grace". Of course, such kind of similarity between different terms could not be considered as very strong arguments supporting any point of view. It play a role of preliminary speculations and should be considered as a serious argument only in the case when it appears (repeats) constantly in a long historical parallelism, when similar names arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two different epochs after one of them is shifted in time as a whole and then compared with another one.

     Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner, it was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them devoted to a certain year. Many years are not described at all (there are some lacunas in the text). It is considered today that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning of A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1. The text of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle seem to be really very old. Absence of long and "beautifully designed" periods in the text (typical for historical literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is an important historical document which was based on some really ancient records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc. and a main question is: what credit should we give to chronologists of 15-17 centuries who actually dated events in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have it now?


     2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".


     Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only about 24 pages in [8].

     There exist more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which are known today (see [8]).

     "The earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or 10th centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even 14th centuries. In some of the manuscripts are indications that the author was Gildas. Nennius is called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus, this manuscript is possibly - compilation... The original text was lost, we do not have it today. But there exists its Irish translation of 11th century" ([8],p.269).

     Translation was made from the publication: "Nennius et l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.

     Some manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals Cambriae", which is considered to be compiled approximately in 954 A.D.

     Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" does not have nor chronological subdivision neither any chronological notes except the following two ones:

     1) A table titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time distances in years between some biblical events - and already according to Scaliger's calculations, which were carried out only in 16th c.

     2) Chapter XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The ground of the dating" , which speaks about the relative distances (in years) between a few events from English history.

     In both cases chronological notes are very brief.

     Resume is that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote the "Historia". It's original text does not exist today, a translation which is considered to be carried out in 11th c. The text does not have it's own chronological scale. Surely, all questions which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to "Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is written in a free artistic manner with many stylistic accessories. It suggests that this manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text could be written only in an atmosphere of a deep and well developed literary tradition when many people use writing and reading books and paper is not a treasure.

     It is accepted today that Nennius describes certain events in a time interval from the epoch of Trojan war to 10-11th cc. A.D. In fact it is a result of only a traditional chronological concept (which suggests that short Nennius' text covers an extremely large 2000-year historical period) that one could find today giant lacunas in chronology of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows by a dotted line the epoch which is considered to be covered by "Historia". According to traditional chronological concept Nennius easily omits whole centuries in his story, makes giant chronological jumps without any explanations. He seems not to notice it at all and continues his story after such jumps as if nothing was missed.


     2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum". "Histories of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth".


     It is generally accepted today that this chronicle was written in 30th or 40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by Galfridus Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text, sometimes even copying Nennius "errors" ([8], p.231, comments to chap. 17; see also [8], p.244). Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big one - about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to Anglo-Saxon Chronicle his text has no chronological subdivision (no indication about years). His writing style was rather complicated, with many accessories, moralities, philosophical excursions et cetera. Galfridus is even considered to be not a historian only but also a poet. Surely, the traditional point of view that Galfridus wrote his book after Nennius, is correct. It is known also that Galfridus made an extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9], p.244). It is assumed that Bede's "History" covers 597-731 A.D.

     It is remarkable that modern commentators point out "the extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation of the antique tradition" ([9], p.207). For example, Galfridus not only used ancient plots, but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus writes his book being fully influenced by the atmosphere of antiquity. It was pointed out that Galfridus copies some of his topics directly from ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but does not give any references ([9], p.236).

     Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely popular in medieval times. "Today we have about two hundreds (! - Auth.) copies of his "History",... which were written in different places starting from 12th century and until 15th century, i.e., up to appearance of the first printed edition" ([9],p.228). At first time "Historia" was printed in Paris in 1508.

     Fig. 1 shows a historical epoch which is assumed to be covered by Galfridus' text (according to traditional chronology). Notice that it is approximately the same time interval as for Nennius' case: namely, from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of course, Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one, but being referred again to the giant 2000-year time interval, it could not cover it all without huge lacunas. And really, traditional chronology states that Galfridus "omit" large historical epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself does not mind it at all. He calmly continues his story without notifying a reader that he sometimes actually misses whole historical epochs in his chronology.


     2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles


    

... ... ...
Продолжение "Fomenko, Nosovskij. New chronology and new concept of the english history. British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire" Вы можете прочитать здесь

Читать целиком
Все темы
Добавьте мнение в форум 
 
 
Прочитаные 
 Fomenko, Nosovskij. New chronology and new concept of the english history. British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire
показать все


Анекдот 
Приходит студент в столовую, подсаживается к профессору. Профессор ему: "Гусь свинье не товарищ" .
Студент: Ну, ладно, я полетел.
Профессор обидился и решил студента на экзамене завалить. Приходит студент на экзамен и отвечает все на «отлично»…
Профессор задает ему вопрос:

- Вот представь, идешь ты по дороге, видишь, два мешка стоят. Один с умом, другой с золотом. Какой возьмешь?
Студент: "С золотом".
Профессор: "А я б с умом взял"
Студент: "Ну, это кому чего не хватает".
Профессор разозлился и написал студенту в зачетке: "козел". Студент даже не посмотрел и ушел. Потом возвращается и говорит: "Профессор, вы тут расписались, а оценку не поставили".
показать все
    Профессиональная разработка и поддержка сайтов Rambler's Top100