Has history been tampered with? Was there really a Dark Age?

Has history been tampered with? It is common knowledge that the Classical Age was followed by many centuries of utter stagnation and decline with virtually nothing happening but wars and famine and the destruction of the priceless ancient monuments.
CLICK ON AMAZON LINK!
Then, during the Renaissance, the Classical authors re-appear from oblivion, Latin and Greek become resurrected as the intelligentsia Esperanto of the Middle Ages, numerous manuscripts re-appear from oblivion to be copied, enter wide circulation, and vanish again, never to be found.
CLICK ON AMAZON LINK!
How preposterous would it be to suggest that there were no Dark Ages to separate the antiquity from the Renaissance - that the "Re-naissance" was in fact the naissance of the Western European culture as we know it? It does contradict everything that we may ever have learnt about history. However, new methods offered by empirical statistics and developed by Anatoly Fomenko, the Russian mathematician, and his colleagues, provide plenty of evidence to support the theory that the Dark Ages are a phantom.

We find lots of spicy morsels in the cauldron of history, and some of them are impossible to digest without soothing explanations that all the contradictions we encounter are to be blamed on the ignorance of the scribes or some such phenomena inherent in the murky past - fancy the statue of Marcus Aurelius lost for several centuries and then found "by accident" on one of the Roman streets, or Senators congregating amongst the ruins of the Capitol due to their being "nostalgic about the great imperial past of the Empire", or the pagan temples turning Christian at the wink of an eye, with the name of the saint coinciding with the name of the pagan deities that these very temples were consecrated to in the mysterious "days of yore"?

The Mongolian Horde was merely the Russian army.

According to the official version of history, Russia remained under the political and military yoke of the Mongols for many centuries on end. The term "Mongol" is usually assumed to have always meant the same thing - however, this turns out to be incorrect. Bear in mind that Mongolia didn't exist as an independent state until the early 20th century! The word "Mongol" simply meant "Great One" - its association with the nomadic tribes hailing from the steppes north of China is a later invention...There was no such thing as the Tartar and Mongol invasion followed by two centuries of slavery. The so-called "Tartars and Mongols" were the actual ancestors of the modern Russians, living in a bilingual state with Arabic spoken as freely as Russian. The ancient Russian state was governed by a double structure of civil and military authorities. The hordes were actually professional armies with a tradition of lifelong conscription (the recruitment being the so-called "blood tax"). Their "invasions" were punitive operations against the regions that attempted tax evasion. Russian history as we know it today is a blatant forgery concocted by a host of German scientists brought to Russia by the usurper dynasty of the Romanovs.

But why did Horde have to be invented?

The reason is simple - the actual "Mongol conquerors of Russia" never existed. The yoke theory was created by the German court historians of the new Russian dynasty - the Romanovs. It has served the end of justifying the Romanovs' claims for the throne and demonising their longtime adversaries - the Horde, or the professional Russian army, which remained fiercely loyal to the old Russian dynasty. The savage Mongol and Tartar invaders and torturers of the Russian land that we read about in history textbooks were the protectors of the state in reality - and ethnic Slavs for the most part. Small wonder historians still cannot find a single trace of the mythical Mongol capital - no such capital ever existed anywhere near the Gobi Desert.

The Mongol Horde identified as the Russian army are extremely hard to swallow for any Russian - yet they are just the tip of the iceberg called New Chronology, which is a radical reconstruction of world history in general and a brainchild of Anatoly Fomenko, one of today's leading mathematicians.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• dan
• brown
• mongols
• russian
• science
• tartars
• history
• channel
• today
• historical
• research
• da
• vinci
• culture
• biblical
• logic
• creation
• vs
• evolution
• of
• man
• ancient
• japanese
• chinese
• italian
• american
• german
• greek
• roman
• criminal
• jewish
• catholic
• lutheran
• baptist
• crucifixion
• spain
• italy
• britain
• prussia
• denmark
• math
• geometry
• ethics
• day
• in
• world
• town
• natural
• city
• witchcraft
• cyprus
• iran
• zodiac
• stars
• punishment
• military
• capital
• politics
• immigrant
• money
• women
• men
• woman

[danieladumbrava]

This is the most naive history about the Mongol middle age history! You really don't know about the Secret History of the Mongols, the Mongol epic chronicle on the thirteenth century? See the recent masterpiece of Igor de Rachewiltz (English translation from Mongol, notes, comments! However, this source is not the only one...

[mithec]

IMHO: google>books>fomenko look at TOC, read and comment

[sudynim]

So this is by the leading mathematician of our time. Sure...but what does that have to do with history?

[mithec]

Chronology was a subdivision of Mathematics in the xvi-xvii century. Author`s objective is to return Chronology to the fold of applied mathematics. He does do not cancel events, artefacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, peoples and persons outright, but suggests to find their true position on the time axis. Google>books>fomenko

[mithec]

re sorces: go to google or to amazon>to `more`> to `book search`>type keyword `fomenko`, read TOC or the whole book free of charge. 1524 sources listed in the literature index.

[mithec]

Right.Earth>4.5 bln, humanoids>5 mln yrs. S.Sapiens<150.000 yrs old, civilization= f(state+army+ideology+writing) goes as far back as AD 800, scarce information about 8-10 cy AD events, most historical events took place in 10-15th cy AD. JC: 1153-1186 AD. Old Testament compiled in 12-16 cy AD, AFTER New One, it renders events of that period. Methods of dating of artefacts, including c14 are non-exact and contradictory, there are no written ORIGINALS datable earlier than the XI century.

[CommanderUTube]

History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.

( Winston Churchill)

[ESP1EMG]

on a serious note....our timeline is incorrect partially and everyone should know that by now. they found water erosion on the pyramids. archeology needs revisited without the scrutiniy of christianity and its ridiculous timeline.

[Anastasiaology]

The Romanov's added 1000 years to history, and the gap was filled with invented "Dark Ages" history. In reality we live in 10-11th century.

[joroma77]

@mithec You know how the dating game works, right? They make an assumption of how much radioactive material was in the rocks to begin with and then extrapolate and make estimates. They claim to know how much radioactivity was in the rocks "millions of years ago" and call it a fact, with not a shred of scientific evidence!!

[joroma77]

@AnitaCock Many people make the assumption that the catholic cult is Christian because it uses idols of someone they call Jesus. Straight from the Holy Bible:

"A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, /.../ One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)"

So, a church leader MUST have a wife and children, a family.

[joroma77]

@ESP1EMG Question: What has water erosion on the pyramids to do with the biblical timeline? I'm a Christian by faith, a believer in the Bible due to archaeological finds etc. (such as billions of fossils buried in sedimentary rock layers), and a believer in God because of the intricacies of life (such as the digital code of DNA). But. I'm open to the idea that we're a thousand years off in our modern chronology.

[AnitaCock]

Blame the wars on the CATHOLIC CULT. PriestsRapeBOYS Com

[rugbyboy198127]

@Wodanaz if i had to sum up ancient british peoples i'd say this.... originals were migratory basque type peoples and migratory scandanavian (ice sheets came to and fro etc, north sea wasn't really there in ancient times!) these the 'indigenous' if any! then introduction of coelbren language/culture, thought to be influence of trading phonicians/trojans etc (mining cornish tin, brutus etc began 3500bc) coelbren is similar to ancient welsh and forerunner of brythonic family, then roman emipre etc

[rugbyboy198127]

@Wodanaz hehe more than mere problems with the celtic grouping lol, that a gross understatement ;) 'celtic' language or culture or what it has come to mean, has nothing whatsoever to do with the ancient brits! it's a total misnomer! yes ancient brits were a pre-indo european peoples just as the basque! although the newer culture and language of gallic people of ireland and scotland may well be from french influence dna shows still same as basque, whilst ancient east coast dna similar norse etc!?

[rugbyboy198127]

@Wodanaz yes i've heard the same - interesting that urals has highest concentration of red hair anywhere, then next highest is scots and irish even before norway ;) so I posit that the ancient brits were more alligned to the peoples of scandanavia than to those of europe, the only celts on these isles are the few bands of belgae or french gales who inhabited only the south-eastern coast! irish/scots gaelic is much newer than the brythonic langauges and maybe an influence of french gallic culture

[rugbyboy198127]

@richmocha infact it's totally meaningless and tells us nothing, and actually the peoples of mainland europe were very different to the peoples of the british isles in ancient times, the language of breton is recent introduced to france from britain not other way around as once suggested! the grand assumption the rome pushed the 'celts' out of europe and into the british isles is false! even if 'celtic' has any merit for a general cultural term for the peoples of north/central europe, not for us

[rugbyboy198127]

@richmocha actually more than it just stuck - romantic writers of the 17th century embraced the term, using it to encompass the variety of displaced peoples of the british isles as united and one, as 'celtic' as opposed to english, when in reality the gaelic languages and the brythonic are not closely related - they're not even in the same branch or family of languages! in academic circles celtic serves to describe any of the peoples of europe of 'pre-civilised' or pre-roman times - it's v broad