Talk:New chronology (Fomenko)/Archive 1

message: The term New Chronology is also used to describe revisionist chronologies of Egyptologists such as David Rohl and Peter James. This will cause a great deal of confusion if the various "New Chronologies" are not treated individually. Indeed, I was led to this page via the Rohl link. —Nefertum17 09:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation needed 

message: I don't know where you got the 1168 AD and 1185 AD dates for Dendera zodiacs. Fomenko's books state quite clearly:
Long horoscope - May 6, 540; Round horoscope - March 15, 568 ( Morozov's solution )
or
Long horoscope - May 14, 1394; Round horoscope - March 22, 1422 ( Fomenko's solution )
Fomenko's interpretation: Saturn in Virgo; Jupiter in Cancer; Mars in Capricornus; Venus in Aries; Mercury between Aquarius and Pisces.
Conventional interpretation: Saturn in Libra; Jupiter in Cancer; Mars in Capricornus; Venus in Pisces; Mercury in Virgo. --Itinerant1 17:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dendera Zodiacs 

message: Life as a Contrarian (Fomenko) is tough, and it may prove helpful to remember that
"To see victory only when it is within the ken of the common herd is not the
acme of excellence."
Sun Tzu (alias Thomas Moore or Erasmus or alias some other euro-humanist - according to Fomenko Chinese history was written by jesuit missionaries to China; he suspects it to be no more than FIVE HUNDRED years long, sic!
Classical History is : A Collection of Writings of Unknown Date and Authorship Rendered into English, French, German, etc.. From Supposed Copies of Supposed Originals Unfortunately Lost.
Franck Ver Stut
:Er...the "collection of writings of unknown date and authorship" (some of which are dated, and most of which do have recorded authors), can certainly be found in untranslated form.  There are both Greek and Latin manuscripts of classical works.  So the translation issue is a canard.  As to Chinese history...well, I don't even see how I can argue with you.  The whole project is so obviously absurd that anyone who is willing to believe it is obviously completely hopeless.  (But, uh, More and Erasmus were both around before the Jesuits.)  There's also the issue of archaeology, which Fomenko and his disciples seem scrupulously determined to avoid.  At the monument of Behistun, Darius I of Persia in the three ancient languages of Old Persian, Elamite, and Akkadian, describes how he came to power.  His story is astoundingly similar to that told by Herodotus, in Ancient Greek, in his Histories.  Did the monks who forged Herodotus have access to the Behistun inscriptions?  Also, Fomenko's theories completely ignore the evidence of linguistics, of which they make a complete hash.  john k 01:31, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Kenney - Fomenko Damage Control Manager 

message: I'm an historian, and I have some questions:
## Did this guy really exist? (lack of biographical evidences).
: Yes. Here are details http://www.univer.omsk.su/foreign/fom/fomenko.htm
## Was he one of famous soviet scientist who rewrite everything coming from West? (science, history, religion).
:Question is incorrect. No.
## Why must we trust him in his historical theories if he has no formal historic education? In historic education there are methods, and with methods come neutrality (at least something near it). Fomenko has no methods, only refutations of something established.
:Incorrect. His theory is not in the area of history but applied mathematics. Why should we trust Pythagorean theorem?
## What about scientific dating of objects? Not only carbon-14, there are I think 3 or 4 others scientific dating methods. Is he trying to rewrite nuclear physics also?
:Unfortunately there are a lot of proofs of very essential mistakes of 'carbon-14' methods up to +/- 2000 years. All other methods where also criticised by Fomenko and many others.
Souris2005 13:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality? 

message: Added by user 81.48.250.16:
"We do not claim that Karakorum was located in Northern Russia! This is a substantial distortion of our text. We haven’t made any such claim, nor have we studied any text entitled “Tartar Relations”, which remains unknown to us. All the above ruminations of the commentator bear a very distant relation to our claims and hypotheses."
But you do. See the book "New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome" (2000), chapter 13, part 12 ( here in Russian: http://www.chronologia.org/rusangl/13-7.doc ) You don't refer to the text specifically as "Tartar Relations", but it is clearly the text being discussed.
"User 81" comments:
Read "We" as Fomenoko+Nosovsky(F&A)
F&A used 1997 edition of russian translation of Carpini's: "Historia Mongalorum quos nos Tartaros appellamus, and Liber Tartarorum, or Tatarorum" which did not specify “Tartar Relations”. Correct, it is the practically same source. Article 12.3 "Carpini's geography of Mongolia" in the link you supplied asserts that Karakorum is not situated in consensual Mongolia, but in Russia, i.e. Karakorum=Great Novgorod=Yaroslavl=capital of Horde=capital of Russia. Look at the map to see where Yaroslavl is, it is Central, not Northern Russia. Matter of taste, that. The point of F&A is that Mongolia=Megalion=Russia=Horde.
Why do you refer to Fomenko as "we"? --Itinerant1 21:51, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hey, what does NPOV mean please?
gf
Please see WP:NPOV which should explain it. By the way you can sign your comments by putting for tildes in a row -  ~~~~ JoshuaZ 23:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

message: Any particular reason why you have deleted approx. 3 or 4 posts after this ?? 24.36.92.155 23:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Please do not add posts that have nothing to do with the article here.

message: So what do we have as a result? The article in question is absolutely biased and does not offer any other conclusion different from “pseudoscience”. Rka 11:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History as a science - twisted perception of reality 

message: Is it possible to have a description of the theory in 'New Chronology (Fomenko)'
about the New Chronology of Fomenko and why he believes he is right.
Frankly I dont care a bit whether the regular 'scientists' believe his theory or not, or why. 
I am perfectly able to make up for myself whether someone has a point or not, this should not only be valid for me, but also for anyone else, so can wiki please stop claiming controversial points of view as pseudoscience. All science is merely religion as it is based on common believes which we then call facts in our religion of science. 
Whether one believes an artifact is 1000 years old because the scientific method of carbon dating says so, doesnt make the artifact 1000 years old. When it is realised that carbon dating is highly flawed and adjusted, accordingly the age of the artifact will change with it. But the truthful age of the artifact will not, whether is was or was not 1000 years old, the real age will still be what is really was.
So start giving us a New Chronology of Fomenko page which describes the theories of Fomenko and his proof of the facts he claims to be true. So anyone can make up his own mind about the matter of the myth of history.
:You can't pick and choose facts like that. The fact that the New Chronology is disputed is of equal importance than the actual theory. To exclude mention of criticism in the way you advocate would be to turn Wikipedia into a vehicle for spreading the "truth according to Fomenko", instead of an impartial entity. 
:Also. Science is not religion precisely because it is willing to accept change. If it is proven that Carbon 14 dating is untrustworthy, or that quantum mechanics are a fallacy, the scientific community will recant its previous statements to the contrary and start exploring the universe from a new starting point. Religion is full of things that nobody can "prove", things you merely have to "believe". 
:Pause and reflect. --Agamemnon2 15:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't be so fast to claim that Science is willing to accept change, scientists have entire careers staked on certain points of views. We are human too, this will cause our views to be biased towards it regardless of if we like it or not. As for the two examples you gave... well, they are both good examples indeed for the points I'm making. People were initially very resistant to Quantum mechanics. For instance Albert Einstein who is undoubtedly widely respected expressed reservations over it. Mathmo Talk 12:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wiki Dictates What To Believe 

message: "The list of his supporters includes such famous figures as Chess World champion Garry Kasparov."
Should this be "such a famous figure"?
70.66.9.162 13:30, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: How the hell does Formenko adress modern DNA testing and gene sciences in accordance with his new chronology? For instance, many parts of Europe show heavy admixture from asian populations that all date back to the times of the Huns and Mongols. I could name numerous DNA tests that directly contradict Fermenko's theories.
Second, does Fermenko have ANY real evidence of a vast conspiracy that covered up world history?
-Anonymous
Wait, in fact I'm amazed nobody has even mentioned genetic and DNA testing and all that, not even the people who try to refute Fermanko. All sorts of sciences on DNA and drift, along with the movements of populations, when certain haplogroups appeared and so much more.... All go in correlation with mainstream history. Like I said, the asian admixtures in central European populations and when they popped up go in direct accordance with the Hunnish and Mongol invasions of Europe. From the small black slave populations in Portugal and Spain that can be dated back to the 1,400's (which is confirmed by Encyclopedia Britannica)..... I could go on and on about how the DNA testing refutes Fermenko's ideas. They're a crushing blow against all that he has to say. The only refutation I can think of this is that something else brought the asian admixture in. Uh yeah, so why does DNA dating correlate with the mainstream history ideas?
-Anonymous
:Furthering on the above comments (which were not posted by me), it seems that Fomenko has problems with scientific dating in general. The assertion in the brief summary of Fomanko's claims "That archaeological dating, dendrochronological dating, paleographical dating, carbon dating, and other methods of dating of ancient sources and artifacts known today are erroneous, non-exact or dependent on traditional chronology" is simply left unsupported in the article. Given that these and other similar methods of dating artifacts are accepted as both relevant and sufficently exact (if somewhat imprecise) by the overwhemling majority of experts in the various fields in question, they cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. Even putting asside the issue of whether or not Fomenko is "right," which is not, as I understand it, the main focus of this article, some explaination of why he discounts the vast aray of available scientific dating methods is necessary in the article for the sake of completeness and comprehensibility.  While it is certainly possible that Fomenko presents arguments which convincingly disqualify all mainstream dating methods, the non-appearance of said arguments in this article renders his hypothesis unconvincing from the start to those with a more traditional grounding in the discipline. Its like asking someone to fight you with one hand behind their back, just because you say so, and then bragging about how great you are when you win. Further the criticism section should be expanded/revised. As it stands now two of the three sentences are about Fomenko's popular success and famous supporters, which doesn't quite seem appropriate somehow. --Dunraven 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I explained Fomenko's rejection of dendrochronology and carbon dating. The bulk of his work was made before DNA testing was widespread, but I wouldn't be surprised if it too would be dependent on traditional chronology in some way. Nikola 21:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Few Questions 

message: I made a number of changes to the article, largely for clarity and flow. I condensed the criticisms of Fomenko's ideas, which are previously been dispersed throughout the article, into the criticism section. The article benefits from the separation as both the original ideas and the counterarguments aginst them are more clear when the two are kept apart. While I tried to retain the original wording of critques, some rewriting was necessary for flow. I also added some information on scientific dating and a couple of citations. It is difficult to find 3rd party sources that criticise Fomenko because his ideas are so far outside of the mainstream that few even deal with him, so if anyone has more and/or better sources please do add them! I have not delt with the problem of Fomenko's reasoning w/regard to scientific dating, because I am not familiar with the precise arguments. I have not inserted any information about the use of  DNA drift rates in dating for similar reasons. I may come back to these after some time. --Dunraven 16:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can find a source for that criticism yes. You may want to read WP:V and WP:OR. JoshuaZ 20:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slight Revision 

message: Has anyone looked into Heribert Illig's theory of "phantom time"? I was wondering if one of these two guys influenced the other, or if they developed their stuff independently. Hi There 15:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure.  I've seen them both discussed at once by various people.  I'd assume that they were both influenced by similar sources, but not directly aware of each other.  Which one started publishing first? There's not too much information in English about Illig, so I'm not really too clear on his precise arguments - He claims that three centuries in the Middle Ages didn't happen, or something similar, no? john k 17:34, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Fomenko and Illig

message: 'A major conspiracy theory is argued'
Who in wiki wiseheads has decided that it was a major conspiracy ?
One hundred years ago criticism on the church would get people extradited from their societies, few hundreds of years ago europe was ruled by brutal dictators ( a bit like those in wiki, except that they are sissies ) and any critic on the king would get your head separated from your body. War was a common way to increase ones wealth and power. The vast majority of people couldnt even read and write, books were kept in centralized places called libraries, certainly not with public access, as they contained knowledge. Thats why the rumours of 'magic books' started, for it was noticed that those who could read, could change their minds after reading a book or were able to make 'devices'
Anyway it did not take a MAJOR conspiracy as in those days. if there was a conspiracy then it was between rulers, kings and the pope, but probably is was 'modern' in those days to falsify history, a hype if you wish, to increase the importance of those who were considered important. Nothing strange about it and the books that were holding the thruth were centrally stored in known places and simply rounded up and burned. Dont make such a big deal out of history, with your conspariacies, conspiracies are nowadays common, but wiki largely fails to notice them anyway. Books were there to glorify the dictators and they decided what went into the books or not.
So wiki smartasses, before even talking about history, one should act as if one was in history, though i know this is asking too much of your pre-programmed brains.
by the way wiki, you state that :
'If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it.'
Isnt that considered vandalism in wiki ? Or is it safe to conclude that wiki is measuring with double standards ...
83.117.111.61 09:00, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Major Conspiracy Theory ? 

message: Hi everybody, I'm an it.wiki user, I've read all this page, it took me 4 hours at least; now I just feel I want to say MHO about this (taking it to roots):
It is a fact that here there are two visions of so-called Chronology: a Standard and a "New" one. It is a fact that the Standard Chronology is accepted worldwide, has the support of all of the existing dating methods, such as C14 and DNA in populations; it is coherent between texts written at noticeable distances, for example Chinese an Occidental historical traditions. The New Chronology instead being invented by Russian mathematician named Anatoly Fomenko, which states that our history is condensed in a thousand years, stating also that the Greek, Roman, and Egyptian civilties were invented by Romantics in XVIII century.
In order to state this, Fomenko uses an incredible quantity of logical fallacies, such as stating that his theory is proven by the fact that we aren't 100% sure of Standard Chronology (like we could be sure of anithing, in a scientific vision of reality). Other examples of this are the continuous referring to  religious books like they were historical truth (of course is difficult for an Atheist or a Buddhist for example to accept that the whole course of history is being changed because of some coincidence between the life of a Pope and the (for them fictitious) life of Jesus Christ); the NC states that there's been a total and capillar distruction or falsification of all the "true" historical books, and this with the intent of a "political control over the masses" (read about this the definition of conspiracy theory, to judge if this is or is not it); not to talk about the incredible "auto da fé" requested by the reader who accept the truth of this theory, who is asked to ignore history, biology, archeology, geology, linguistics, genetics, philology ecc. ecc. and blindly follow Dr. Fomenko and his quasi-secure theory. That says also falsities, like the one that we don't have the primieval sources of what we read; indeed, of significative many cases we have sheets and papyrs that have been datated near the time of first writing of the opera - the only way out is to discredit datation itself; better to build a solid theory on obscure calculi of Egiptian horoscopes and star observation that make all this story seem like something out of Graham Hancock.
The question is: what should we put in the wikipedia entry? That a former mathematician voted to history revising has invented a totally unsustainable theory and has found people that believe in what he says? And what if tomorrow I begin stating that pigs can fly and find some follower? You're going to make a Wiki page also for me, and for the other 10,000 maniacs asking for some attention from the cold world? Definitely I believe that this page should be deleted, or rewritten as a page about a strange curiosity (or maybe a religion?) without giving to all this stuff the "scientifical status" it asks, as a sign of respect to all those serious scientists that spend their lives in divulgating the scientific method. --TedO 05:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A simple question 

message: Dear Ted,
I have a net impression that your acquaintance with NC theory is limited to re-reading the biased wiki-article and subsequent pro- and anti- NC discussion. Be consequent and demolish one by one all or at least some points advanced by Acad.Dr.Prof Fomenko. Dr Fomenko has vaporized a good number of cornerstones of consensual chronology and the community of historians pretends they are still there. For the starters, kindly prove that Almagest of Ptolemy was compiled in 2 cy a.d., prove that bronze could have been made before discovery of metallic tin in early xivth cy, prove that c14 dating has precision of +/- 50 years or better, prove that statiscally impossible repetition of dynastic flows is somehow possible..do catch Acad.Dr.Prof Fomenko in any of presumably infinite acts of lying, manipulation, distortion , well, there should be an ample opportunity on 1202 pages of vol.1 and vol.2 of History:Fiction or Science?.
P.Bracciolini
:The traditional dating of Almagest has been conclusively proven, and Fomenko's "dating" has been shown, more than once, to be based on selective data extraction, erroneous assumptions, faulty logic, and just plain calculation errors (see for example , , ). Same with "dynastic parallelisms" - they simply don't exist if you look at them closely. Lots of highly credible academicians have done exactly this, again and again: demonstrated Fomenko's "acts of lying, manipulation, distortion". There are many VERY detailed books and articles on that, just read up if you're really interested. You foreigners are coming to this with the zeal of new converts, but in Russia, Fomenko is already very much passe. The war was in full swing a few years ago, but by now it's almost over. Fomenko's speculations have decisively failed to gain any credibility at all in science. I guess that's why he started his expansion to the West - in the hope of reaping more fools? Trapolator 12:49, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A very simple answer 

message: Unfortunately, some of the discussion here strikes me as highly emotional, with loaded words (sometimes in the nature of name-calling) seeming to take the place of dialogue. 
The defenders of Fomenko probably feel a deep commitment to remaining tenacious in the face of what they no doubt feel are unfair or bigoted attacks, but it does not promote understanding, simply to assert that Fomenko has "absolutely refuted" the prevailing chronology. On the other hand, it does not advance the discussion, to label A. Fomenko's work "pseudoscience," without explanation. Such a characterization ("Fomenko's New Chronology is pseudoscience") is a conclusion; it expresses an opinion, but the word "pseudoscience" alone doesn't offer any evidentiary support for the truth of that opinion. For all I know, Professor Fomenko may be totally wrong (or largely wrong), and perhaps he is a deluded crackpot or a deliberate hoaxster, etc., but I would genuinely appreciate it if the discussion of his views could focus more on accurately stating his claims and the historical issues he raises, and then considering any specific countervailing evidence to rebut his claims and resolve those issues.
As I understand him (and my understanding is very limited---I merely spent a few hours skimming his two-volume set in English), A. Fomenko is interested in the timeline of historical dating of events---that is, chronology. Apart from his mathematical analyses of statistical patterns (which I have not yet tried to follow carefully), he has claimed that most (perhaps all?) of the TEXTS that reflect supposedly ancient writings are not themselves as ancient as is posited by the more established chronology (which he tends to call "Scaligerian chronology"---not a term I was familiar with before looking at the Fomenko books). One of his points seems to be that these physical documents are not as old as the "Scaligerian chronology" posits they should be if those documents were actually contemporary "original" documents. Likewise, he claims that many supposedly ancient architectural structures are also of more recent origin than has been supposed. To my mind, these are interesting and not implausible claims and I would like to know what evidence supports them, and what evidence undermines them. Going a step further, which methods of dating objects (and events) are relatively more reliable, and which methods are less reliable?
I think the discussion will be more interesting if it is not quite so ideological.
160.253.229.64 22:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately - but understandably - most of the analysis of Fomenko is only available in Russian. But there's a lot of it, just see the links for the Russian wikipedia article (which itself is a good summary). Fomenko's crown achievement is undoubtedly his "dating" of Almagest; that comes from the early days of his historic endeavors (80s or 90s I think) and indeed, at first sight, makes an impression of something worthwhile. It required several astronomers to write several papers to fully expose the extent of Fomenko's manipulations in that work. Basically, of the thousands of stars in the catalog, he selected, on hardly justifiable grounds, just a dozen - simply because those star's position errors make them support Fomenko's dating. A complete analysis of all Almagest stars of course supports the traditional dating (see ). Fomenko's other astronomic evidence (redating of eclipses, mostly) is much easier to refute - I did it myself just for fun using a desktop planetarium. Next come "dynastic parallelisms," for which you don't need any special knowledge whatsoever: just use Wikipedia to verify Fomenko's lists of kings/rulers and you'll see at once how he drops some, adds others, splits them in pieces, alters their dates freely - all this to make his lists seem to "match". It's outrageous. Finally, at the rock bottom of respectability, are Fomenko's linguistic arguments - they are the most numerous (especially in his recent works where he stopped bothering with anything more plausible, because his current target audience will not appreciate that anyway) and certainly the most laughable. Really, I would be interested to see how they translated all that into English, because a lot of Fomenko's "similarities" do not make any sense except to a Russian-speaking person. For example Fomenko identifies John_Crescentius with John the Baptist because the names "sound alike", apparently blissfully unaware that it's only in Russian that "krestitel" (=baptist) has any similarity to "Crescentius". I could go on and on: open his book on any page and you'll get a good laugh, guaranteed. Trapolator 12:40, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The main problem with Formenko is the Almagest. Everyone uses it against his because he seemed to have made some mistakes with dating it. The Almagest dating was the reason he went the way of chronological review, so once people refute it they stop at his work altogether. It is easy to point out one mistake but it is not easy to fix it and produce a correct date. The concensus about the ALmagest seems to be that it must have been edited (if not written) after 800 AD because the of the star ordering. That it possibly had offets put on certain values at this time because people at that period believed the original (or at least there copy, remember it must have been scibed over and over many times to last hundreds or years) to have errors in it because they did not fully understand the precession, and because of these changes there is simply no way to accurately date it.--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Having read the first 2 volumes in english and struggling through other work in russian, there seems to be very few 'hard' facts. The astronomical dating is largly open to interpretation. The only solid astronomical dating seems to be that of the Egyptian zodiacs. If someone wants to refute his theory they should start here. The triple eclipse will forever be doupted as to if or not the eclsipses were full/partial etc. etc. The revlations zodiac is even more open to interpretation (though its seems obvious that it describes a zoadic, the only question is does it have medieval origins in its description, there is serious doupt about revlations to begin with).--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also some of formenkos work actually is rather good. Specifically he points out many error sources that do not appear to be adjusted for in carbon dating. Furthermore he is true that the C14 levels in many things today mean that they would be dated to both the future and the distant past, this means that atomic bombs cannot be only explained away as to why some plants don't have enough C14 and others have to much. Also he is correct about carbon dating of the tree rings, if you only have 1 tree from that period how can you be sure that it is carbon level for that year? He points out that tree rings matching the same date often have greatly different C14 levels, yet most dates only have 1 tree carbon reading, meaning that the bias that is put on to adjust it, still has extreme error that cannot be fixed until we get many tree samples for the same date. In the least the C14 exchange system is alot more unstable than made out to be, and these unknown errors have never been taken into account to give +/- errors when a date is determined, formenko claims that the +/- on almost any date would be 1,000 years if you take into account these errors.... but his examination is hardly in depth.--155.144.251.120 22:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts to Digest the Discussion are Hindered by Considerable Polemic 

message: I thought that according to Fomenko, there are no dynastic parallelisms to be found after the 16th or 17th century (forgive me I forget which one exactly). However, according to this skeptic article (http://www.skepticreport.com/pseudohistory/fomenko.htm) you can easily see just such a parellelism between two sequences of danish rulers. (actually the article constructs three such sequences, but I'm specifically pointing out the bottom half of the final one, whereby a sequence of danish kings from 1588-1947 is equated to a sequence of danish kings from 1340-1588. The reason I'm only pointing to this in particular is so that Fomenko supporters don't start crying foul on me.) Well? The article as a whole is pretty amusing, and the author is a bit of a smartass about the whole thing, but nevertheless it shows that it's not really all that hard to pull these parallelisms out of the air. I don't belive this piece of criticism is referenced at all in the article, but perhaps it should be. Any thoughts?
:Note however that Fomenko doesn't compare only lengths of rule but other rulers' properties as well, and graphs are just representations of the matches. Refer to New Chronology %28Fomenko%29#Statistical correlation of dynasties. Nikola 11:01, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Dynastic Parallelisms 

message: neither genetic analysis, nor population genetics are relevant to chronology new or old. 
As consolation read sci pop The Seven Daughters of Eve by Bryan Sykes.
83.114.157.129 18:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check DNA on WIKI 

message: Ebrey, Walthall, and Palais mentioned the Tang Dynasty capital of Chang'an in the passage I posted above. Out of the vast history of the entire country of China, looking at just a three hundred year history of this city during the Tang Dynasty alone is incredible, considering how much we know about what happened. I will wikilink below the sections of this article that give locations and events for the Tang capital by individual sectors of the city. Let's take another look. Shall we? ;)--PericlesofAthens 03:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Just plain old contradictions

message: Dear Pericles,
Turn the clock, not the rock. Take an aspirin and read the book instead of surfing, read at least discussion on this page, better yet search inside with google>books>fomenko ot amazon>books>fomenko. In Dr Prof A.Fomenko own words:
The British Encyclopaedia names Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540-1609) as the founder of the consensual chronology we live with. Scaliger had considered himself a great mathematician and boasted to have solved the classical “ancient” mathematical ‘Quadrature of Circle’ problem that was subsequently proven insoluble.
 
His principal works Opus Novum de emendatione temporum (1583) and Thesaurum temporum (1606) represent a vast array of dates produced without any justification whatsoever, containing the repeating sequences of dates with shifts equal to multiples of the major cabbalistic numbers 333 and 360. Numerology was considered a major science then and J.J.Scaliger was a prominent cabbalist of his time. 
 
The English philosopher William Ockham (allegedly 1225-1279 AD) said: "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity". `Ockham’s razor` applied to history leaves us with a vision of humankind where civilization comes into being in the VIII- X centuries at the earliest, if civilization is understood as a hierarchical system consisting of state, army, ideology, religion, communication and writing.
 
Neither J.J.Scaliger nor his followers, clergy or humanists have paid much attention to Ockham’s law when they crafted Roman and Greek Antiquity. Their clients were condottieri upstarts who were seeking legitimacy in days of yore in order to become Popes, Cardinals or to found regal dynasties such as the Medici. They paid exceedingly well for a glorious but fictitious past.
 
Thorough research shows that there is literally no reliably datable information about events before the VIII century, and that there is only very scarce information originating from the VIII to the X century. As a matter of fact, most events of “Ancient” History took place from the XI to the XVI century, were replicated on paper in 1400-1600 AD, and positioned under different labels in an imaginary past.
 
We have cross-checked archaeological, astronomical, dendro-chronological, paleo-graphical and radiocarbon methods of dating of ancient sources and artefacts. We found them ALL to be non-independent, non-exact, statistically implausible, contradictory and inevitably viciously circular because they are based or calibrated on the same consensual chronology. 
 
Unbelievable as it may seem, there is not a single piece of firm written evidence or artefact that could be reliably and independently dated earlier than the XI century. Classical history is firmly based on copies made in the XV-XVII centuries of 'unfortunately lost' originals.  
 
Our theory simply returns the Chronology of World History to the realm of applied mathematics from which it was sequestrated by the clergy in the XVI-XVII centuries. We have developed a valid and verifiable method of historical research based on statistics, astronomy and logic. 
 
For example, computer assisted recalculation of eclipses with detailed descriptions allegedly belonging to Antiquity shows that they either occurred in the Middle Ages or didn't occur at all. A simple application of computational astronomy to the rules of calculation of Easter according to the Easter Book introduced by the Nicean council of alleged 325 AD shows that it definitely could not have taken place before 784 AD. 
 
Some related questions may arise: when and where was Jesus Christ born, when was He crucified?  Was The Old Testament compiled before or after the New One, etc..? No, the New Chronology theory does not cancel events, artefacts, Pyramids, Great Walls, etc..etc, but points to their more probable positions on the time axis. 
81.250.200.66 10:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One question: How does any of this contradict what I just wrote above? Simple answer, it doesn't. You've given no substantial proof to contradict what I wrote, and I did a little amazon search inside Fomenko's book on what he says about China, yet he barely says a thing at all, except for some jumbled useless garbage about European maps in the 14th or 15th century.--PericlesofAthens 12:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  World History mainstream rejects Fomenko outright - so what? 

message: Poggio:
Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of the Jesuits, but did you fall on your head when you were a kid or something? Eat a lot of paint chips? Sniff glue? Tell me, which Jesuit was this that rewrote the entire history of China, with every single event, person, historical place, cultural tid-bit of knowledge, throughout history, while the Chinese court sat and nodded their head in approval of his new version of history as if they didn't care or had no problem with the ramifications of such a thing. Not only that, but the Jesuits would have to master the entire present Chinese writing and language system (with tens of thousands of different written characters), on top of learning old and out-of-use Chinese writing systems with thousands of more characters, every single type of Chinese calligraphy style, along with the ancient rhyming patterns of the Chinese language that changed over centuries of time. Are you insane? I've read much of what the Jesuits first arriving in China had to say (from Ricci to Trigault), they understood very little of Chinese culture and the enormity of its historical past. If anything, they gave praise to ancient Chinese philosophers such as Kong Fuzi (551-479 BC), but there was still a limited understanding. Hey, you know what else contradicts Fomenko (amongst a million other things)? The Italian Jesuit Matteo Ricci Latinized Kong Fuzi's name as Confucius in the late 16th century, and you believe that Kong Fuzi was just a fairy tale made up by the Jesuits when they arrived in China, right? The teachings of Kong Fuzi in Confucianism were paramount in Chinese culture and governance from the Han Dynasty (202 BC-220 AD) under Emperor Wu of Han all the way up to the 1911 revolution that toppled the Qing Dynasty. Long before Matteo Ricci had ever set foot in China, the name "Kong Fuzi" ("孔夫子") was written billions of times in Chinese literary documents beforehand, because his philosophy became front-and-center in importance in the Chinese world.
And not only that, you actually believe that the entire Islamic world and South Asian world of India was involved in some huge conspiracy to cover up the past with the Jesuits. What makes you think any of these groups trusted the Jesuits, let alone allowed them to rewrite all of their history books? Do you understand the enormity of such a task? There weren't too many Jesuits to begin with, and in those days everything had to be written by hand first. You're thinking in 21st century terms, not what life was really like back then. The Muslims in the Ottoman, Safavid, and Mughal empires would have laughed the Jesuits out of their courts at such a radically stupid proposal (just how Fomenko probably laughs at all of you while handling all the money he's earned from you buying his books). What none of you Fomenko fans (who repeat what Fomenko writes like a loyal parrot) don't seem to realize is that other cultures, such as Islamic and Chinese, hold their lineages and histories in high esteem. Many Chinese families trace their roots back thousands of years to exact geographical, regional, and sometimes municipal, locations. They would never allow a foreigner to soil or disturb their written history. Plus, you have the audacity to believe the Chinese even allowed the Jesuits to step foot into the Imperial Archives, let alone handle precious historical documents. Then of course there is the Islamic world. No faithful Muslim would allow the Jesuits to tamper with their history, and why would the Jesuits, being faithful Christians, write mountains of documents in praise of the Prophet Muhammad, his family, his early followers, etc.?--PericlesofAthens 21:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh man, I love my response from Amazon.com! Take a look:
--PericlesofAthens 16:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: And now we turn to the Jesuits

message: Yes, Pericles is a true China crack. No, Jesuits did not falsify, replicate, distort glorious Chinese history. The grown up Chinese have done it themselves. All the jesuits did was to supply abundant European propaganda leaflets, books, etc..for further creative chinese cuisine. Look closer at the chinese history you know so well, you may discover repeating patterns. Don't study Fomenko, you risk to turn into another NC zealot. Mea culpa, actually there are only two instances of jesuits briefly mentioned in vol.1: Dionysius Petavius,  - the pupil of Scaliger, and Jean Hardouin, chief librarian of Louis XIV. Poggio Bracciolini 11:07, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pericles wins the Chinese round

message: It is assumed that in some cases certain archaeological findings can be dated with the aid of the ancient coinage found on the site. However, one should be aware that the so-called numismatic dating as used today is wholly dependent on Scaligerian chronology.
This chronology was created in the XVI-XVII century, and all the kings and rulers described in chronicles and other documents took certain chronological places.
Then the ancient coins were distributed along the time axis – for instance, coins bearing the legend “Nero” were dated to the I Scaligerian century a.d., the ones saying “Justinian,”as the VI Scaligerian century a.d.,etc., since those are the centuries where Scaligerian chronology
locates the Roman emperors Nero and Justinian. After that, all of the coins found in the XVIII-XX century have either been dated by the same “method,” or compared to the ones that have already received datings, and placed on the time axis accordingly.
It is perfectly obvious that any alteration of the Scaligerian chronology that this “method” is based upon shall automatically alter the “numismatic datings” as well. Furthermore, an independent comparison of different coins that isn’t based on external chronological considerations, cannot even tell us anything about the relative chronology of the coins under
comparison, let alone their absolute chronology. Comparing actual coins as metallic objects bearing graphical designs of some sort cannot give us exact knowledge of which coin is older and which is newer. The analysis of the metal that the actual coin is made of can point at its geographical point of origin in some cases.However, the calculation of the date – absolute
or relative – sadly remains an impossibility. It is possible that some method will be developed eventually that will estimate absolute ages of coins after a study of the alloys that they are made of.However, as far as we know, no such method has yet been developed.
Note: xvii-xvii cy clearly dated Russian coinage allows for very interesting conclusions. Numismatics is not completely lost as instrument of historical research, starting with xvi cy only.
:There are many external methods of dating the soil-disturbances in which many coins are found. These include stratigraphy/superposition for relative dates of the soil-disturbances and structures; seriation for relative dates of other objects in the soil-disturbances, using multiple features on multiple types of artifact, carbon dating and other absolute dating techniques for the same, pollen analysis, which may not produce dates but still produce other relevant data, etc. And please sign your post. Jacob Haller 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: RE: NUMISMATIC DATING

message: No, I'm pretty sure that's not one of them; I'm pretty sure one of the greatest mysteries known to date is how a majority of those in the world who have been severely brain damaged to near vegetable status somehow rallied together in congregation to support Fomenko's book, while they weren't busy at the moment eating brains as zombies, of course. That my friend, is a true mystery, a common phenomena if you will that baffles scientists to this very day (the ones who actually give a trebuchet-flying crap in wasting a minute in one day of their professional lives to read Fomenko and fans of his foaming at the mouth like you; personally I enjoy it, in the same sort of way that one becomes interested in the various personalities found living at a mental institution). Seriously, with all the worthless tripe you've just written about artillery, Mr. Mystery Man who doesn't sign his posts, you obviously don't understand how things piece together in evolutionary stages at all. From the late 13th century and 14th century we have some of the earliest guns and cannons already discovered by archeologists (some of these guns and cannons even inscribed with dates and descriptions), let alone tons of documents illustrating them in the European, Islamic, and Chinese spheres. Since I've written so much about China, I might as well share this wikilink about a 14th century Chinese military treatise documenting all the various gunpowder weapons known to the Chinese in that century: Huolongjing. It becomes clear-as-crystal that many of the weapons used were primitive to standards of even the 17th century. Seriously, do not come here acting like you know anything about artillery, which you obviously don't. Period.--PericlesofAthens 11:00, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Pericles, you should be careful here.  I'm fairly certain that I'm pretty sure one of the greatest mysteries known to date is how a majority of those in the world who have been severely brain damaged to near vegetable status somehow rallied together in congregation to support Fomenko's book, while they weren't busy at the moment eating brains as zombies qualifies as a personal attack.  john k 14:08, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Priceless, for everything else, there's Sanity...and MasterCard. Lol

message: I'm wondering whether Fomenko addresses linguistics, and, if so, how he explains, among other possible issues, the following:
* The existence of a Finno-Ugric language (Magyar) in Central Europe
* The regularity of the sound shifts in the Indo-European languages (e.g. Grimm's and Verner's laws apply to the Germanic languages, and most words in the Germanic languages, and the exceptions can be explained as loan words, many of which deal with politics or trade).
* Whether, for example, the Codex Argenteus (generally considered a real document and a 6th-century one) is real or is a fake, and if it is real, when and where it was made, and if it is fake, how they got the right language-features before discovering the appropriate laws.
I don't mean to dwell on one document, but raise it as an example. Jacob Haller 20:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that Fomenko's treatment of linguistics is rather calamitously bad - he either ignores it or makes outrageously wrong claims. john k 05:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Dr Fomenko developes certain conjectures the historians would die for. Any topologist worth his salt can turn a doughnut into Bugs Bunny and vice versa. Dr Fomenko is the top of the tops as topologist. Linguistics is certainly not his realm. But every time he ventures there he honestly warns the reader. The Codex Argenteus is alleged vi or n-th cy. Same goes for ALL alleged 'ancient' documents dating. All classic history is built on copies made in xv-xix centuries from originals unfortunately lost. Poggio Bracciolini 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the parchment that's interesting, or the text, so much as the language the text is in. It's hard to see how people could fake many languages, even ones closely related to extant languages, let alone ones unrelated to these. Jacob Haller 15:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: right. It's just a matter of the timeframe: Canonical Version of History says thousands of years, NC says hudnreds of years. Esperanto is an example of a speak concocted in barely ten years of pasttime by an eye-doctor. Dr Fomenko provides unsinkable statistical proof of artificial elongation of the timeline and proves the figmental nature of 'ancient' eclipses for the glory of the winning parties, i.e. Constantine or JC. His own history conjectures are just that..conjectures. Caught 'historian's' virus? Poggio Bracciolini 17:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've mentioned this above, and I'm glad others are here to tackle that subject. Not that it should be difficult to refute anything Fomenko writes; a young 5th grade student could do that in 45 minutes by studying in his elementary school library; ok, I'll admit, that was sort of mean. It's more likely that a 6th grade student could do that in 45 minutes by studying in his elementary school library. There that's better. Lol.--PericlesofAthens 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Why thank you, sugar-bumps! But have you ever heard of total and absolute irony? To answer that question, I'm guessing...not.--PericlesofAthens 17:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Languages, their distribution, variation, relationships, etc.

message: History repeats itself, etc.. that is proverbial. Dr Fomenko and team elaborated a number of valid statistical methods for finding such patterns..well, they are the whistleblowers. Let's hope that the advanced (blind test proof) mass spectrometry dating methods will be developed at last and applied INDEPENDENTLY (from schools of thought, religions, and traditions)  to the documents and artifacts producing a true chronological grid. All versions of history should be tested against such grid. Dr Fomenko's own version of history is just..another version. Sadly, for the time being stays true the definition of history given by American philosopher George Santayana : "History is a pack of lies about events that never happened told by  people who weren't there." Poggio Bracciolini 14:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're absolutely right! In fact, this conversation never even took place, because there's no way we can tell the date in which you signed your post, 14:59, 30 July 2007, is valid because Jesuits and humanists must have rewritten the time! In fact, Poggio isn't even really Poggio! He's actually George Washington; if you look at the patterns, you can tell that Jesuits took George Washington's writing and made it into Poggio's. That's the only logical explanation to me. (Lol)--PericlesofAthens 17:45, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics is essentially about finding patterns. 

message: There's one sentence about Freud's views on biblical history in this article. It doesn't really seem to belong here, IMHO. His views as expounded in Moses and Monotheism kept traditional chronology (mostly) intact. They were unconventional, of course, but not all unconventional views begin world history around the year 1000 AD. His certainly didn't! --Christofurio 03:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Freud did question consensual chronology, din't he? Suggest to leave it as is. Proceed to UNDO Poggio Bracciolini 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed.  Even Velikovsky would have found Fomenko's chronology ridiculous.  Beyond that, I'm not sure why Freud ought to be discussed at all.  He was not a specialist in ancient history, and wrote Moses and Monotheism 70 years  ago.  Discussion of Freud's views of ancient history belong in  articles about  Freud and  his theories,  but not elsewhere.  john k 06:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Does Freud belong here?

message: The coinage history has allegedly seen an “ancient dawn,” then the Dark Ages are supposed to have come, and later on the Renaissance epoch. It is assumed that between the VIII and XIII century a.d. all Roman golden coinage disappeared from Italy ([Cipolla, Carlo M.Money, Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century. Princeton, Princeton Univ. Press, 1956.]). This strange effect is noticeable enough to have entered the names of chapters of certain monographs on history and numismatics, such as “The End of Roman Coinage (V century),” or “Imitation epoch (VI century)” ([Grierson, Philip. Monnaies du Moyen Âge. Fribourg,
1976.]). Let us pay close attention to the following information provided by specialists in numismatic history. It turns out that in the Middle Ages “the West of Europe did not try to compete with Byzantium and the Muslims in this respect. The idea of having regular gold coinage was given up, and most mints produced silver coins” ([Prices and Civilization in the Mediterranean World. 5-17 century.], page 20; [1435]). It is also said that “regular golden coinage had practically ceased in VIII-century Western Europe, and towards the end of the same century on the Italian peninsula as well. Even in Muslim Spain no golden coinage was minted between the beginning of the VIII century and the beginning of the X” ([Prices..], page 20). Numismatists attempt to give some sort of explanation to this mysterious “mediaeval gap” in coinage history. It is suggested that “gold coinage was ceased by an order issued by Pepin”. The council at Reims allegedly forbade the use of the golden solidi of imperial Rome, and the type of circulating coinage allegedly “became barbaric” in the VIII century ([The End of Roman Coinage ], page 151). Doesn’t this imply that the “ancient”Western European coinage is really mediaeval, minted after the XIV century a.d., and cast way back in time by Scaligerian chronology? Historians proceed to tell us that “there are no Papal coins from the time of Benedict VII (who died in the alleged year 984 a.d. – A. F.) to that of Leo IX [allegedly the middle of the XI century – A. F.] in existence; this is purely incidental, since the coinage must have existed, naturally… There is only one coin from the times of Leo IX… Even stranger is the fact that not a single coin remained from the times of Gregory VII” ([Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages. London, G. Bell & Sons, 1900-1909.], Volume 4, page 74, comment 41).
Where did all these mediaeval coins go? Let us formulate a hypothesis. All of these coins have been misdated, and thrown back into the past, transforming into “ancient coins” as a result. Some of them are exhibited in museums as “very old ones” nowadays. Apparently, the naissance of golden and silver coinage in Western Europe really dates to the XIII century a.d. at the earliest. Confronted by the non-existence of mediaeval Western European coins predating
the XIII century a.d., the numismatists were faced with the necessity to invent various theories aimed at explaining the economical stagnation of Europe that allegedly followed the “flourishing Classical age”. The strange “stagnation” in Roman minting between the
VIII and XIII century a.d. is all the more amazing since it follows a very fruitful and glorious period of Roman coinage of the alleged I-VI century a.d.
Golden coins of this “ancient” empire are on a par with the mediaeval ones dated to the XIII-XVII century in quality and detail. This oddity is most probably explained by the misdating of the XIII-XVII century coins that have been moved a long way into the past.
:Doesn’t this imply that the “ancient”Western European coinage is really mediaeval, minted after the XIV century a.d., and cast way back in time by Scaligerian chronology?  No, it does not imply such a thing. john k 20:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Loose change?

message: The Canonical Version of History (CVH further in the text) is as follows. Once there were the valiant ancient Greeks, who came up with orderly navy combat tactics verging on the impeccable and used it with great success – first against the Persians, and then against each other (in the Peloponnesian war and the countless skirmishes of Alexander's successors. Then the iron-clad legions of Rome learned to set sail, and eventually mastered the art of naval combat as well, defeating the Carthaginians in the Punic Wars, and then each other in a plethora of internecine conflicts. Then came the lugubrious Middle Ages, the noble art of naval tactics was lost, and the dim-witted Christian Barbarians couldn't do any better than crashing the board of their vessel into the nearest enemy ship and use various metallic objects to bang on each other's heads. It was only with the advent of the Renaissance that the European admirals got some notion of tactics from the oeuvres of Plutarch and Sueton – however, even the Battle of Gravelines (1588) looked more like a free-for-all than orderly and sensible manoeuvring. Really, the CVH has a very rigid and immutable (and therefore doubly dangerous) system of “sympathies and antipathies”, which is perfectly irrational at a closer look and much resembles the way teenage schoolgirls assess the virtues and shortcomings of their classmates.    
-    
- This is what we see to be the case here. The “ancient Greeks” are the darlings of the CVH – so wise, so shapely, with no greater joy than to discuss the sublime and the eternal, prove a theorem or baffle the profane with a dazzling sophism. Also, they had Homer, who wrote a poem that was sung by every shepherd in Hellas for centuries to come, never mind his being blind. Shepherds had nothing better to do, after all, than to strum their lyres all day long and recite the “Iliad” - all of its 700 pages. A very typical opinion of the lumpen intelligentsia, whose familiarity with sheep does not go beyond mutton chops and lambskin hats. And the sonorous names of the authors and the characters! Euripides, Anaximander and so forth. A far cry from all the Johns and the Fritzes, isn't it? The fact that these nobly-named characters were extremely prone to betraying their beloved Hellas and each other, being no strangers to fornication, poison and other attributes of mediaeval life, is usually de-emphasised or altogether hushed up.    
-    
- Oh, and the Greeks had democracy as well – one of the holiest cows revered by the lumpen intelligentsia. Granted, it would keep transforming into oligarchy, dictatorship and what-have-you, but let us refrain from mentioning such atrocities . . . Wouldn't it be nicer to talk about Empedocles and Agathocles? We could also discuss the Romans as a set-off. They surely look somewhat hammer-headed as compared to the Greeks. To think of all the statues they destroyed in the city of Syracuse! They murdered Archimedes in his prime, too. Fortunately, they realised it soon enough that the Hellenistic way of life was the only correct modus vivendi, and learned to compose iambic verse and make statues, which made them look more positive in the eyes of the learned historians. Apart from that, they came up with many a brilliant aphorism – not to mention the culture and the order that they brought to the conquered nations (doesn't this kind of argumentation bring the likes of Cecil Rhodes and Alfred Rosenberg to mind?) Who would have mettle enough to point an accusing finger at such trifles as gladiator fights and slave exploitation?   
-    
- The Barbarians and their successors, such as the crusaders and other ill-bred Christians, are definitely regarded with scorn by the historical science. Those no-goodniks invariably woke up with the thought of finding a statue to smash or a library to burn, not to mention their use of temples as stables. Obviously enough, they remained a malicious and destructive force up until the epoch when they started to read Ovid and Sueton and became a bit more civilized. There is no talk of the Slavs – those half-apes were still learning to tell their left hand from their right.    
-    
- Sad, but so very true: historians are extremely biased in their estimation of one nation or another, the presence or absence of statues being their primary criterion. This has to be borne in mind by anyone who studies the works of the CVH aficionados. As for the evolution of naval tactics, their dynamic was as follows, according to the official version:   
-    
- V century B. C. Themistocles the wise, who made such brilliant speeches at the agora just yesterday (a politician, in other words), is featured as the fearless leader of a fleet of 370 ships, no less, which takes on 800 ships of the Persians, manoeuvres hither and thither, destroys the Persians and returns to Athens triumphant, wreathed and clad in white.   
-    
- III century B. C. The Roman consuls Caius Duilius and Marcus Atilius Regulus lead a fleet of 330 ships into battle against 250 Carthaginian vessels at Cape Ecnomus. They deftly manoeuvre, crush the flanks and attack the enemy from the rear, effectively destroying the Carthaginian fleet, to be wrapped up in purple by the adoring multitudes upon return.    
-    
- I century B. C. In the Battle of Cape Actium the 260 ships of Octavian and Agrippa meet fleet of 170 vessels led by Antony and Cleopatra. Octavian is the victor.    
-    
- What do all of the above battles have in common? Firstly, the main type of vessel employed by all participants – the trireme. According to the CVH, it was a ship with three rows of oars (and therefore oarsmen) on each side. Of course, there were aberrations, which is perfectly natural; engineers of all times were subject to kinks of all sorts, which resulted in the construction of unusual devices, with the base model transformed beyond recognition, compact as well as megalomaniac. There were biremes, for instance, with two rows of oars, and also quadriremes and quinqueremes – with four and five rows of oars, respectively. Also, either Strabon or Pliny mention deciremes – vessels with ten rows of oars.    
-    
- Secondly, what all of the above have in common is the method of harming the enemy. Apparently, each and every ancient fleet used catapults of all sorts at the stage of approaching the enemy, bombarding the enemy with stones and pots with burning oil. Then, upon reaching a closer distance, the ships sought to use rams in order to damage the hull of the enemy vessel – copper-bound stem posts, that is. Finally, after the loss of velocity and ability to manoeuvre, the enemy ships were boarded.    
-    
- Thirdly, the excellent organisation and perfect control over fleets comprising several hundreds of ships. This is the most amazing thing. The ships could manoeuvre, advance, retreat, outflank the enemy and hasten towards their comrades in peril as if every skipper had a walkie-talkie or a mobile phone hidden in the folds of his tunic. In other words, Greek and Roman fleets (and ancient fleets in general) demonstrate outstanding seamanship, unrivalled for centuries to come.    
-    
- The ancient Rome perished eventually, and the ecclesiastical witch hunters raised their ugly heads, smashing all the statues and burning all the scrolls. What happened next? The following.    
-    
- The XIV century. Hundred years' war, naval battle at Sluys. The French ships stand anchored at the shore, the English fleet approaches them from the windward side, and a head-to-head battle commences. No manoeuvring, no catapults, no rams – a regular battle of the most unsophisticated sort. The English “marines” must have been better at fencing than the Genoese and the French, and gave them a thorough beating.    
-    
- The XV-XVII century. The epoch of the most heated confrontation between the Christian Europe and the Turko-Arabic world, as well as ceaseless skirmishes between the European countries, in the Mediterranean for the most part.    
-    
- The scenario is just the same as above. Here is a classical example of a naval battle of that epoch: 1571, the Battle of Lepanto, 209 Christian ships against 296 vessels of the Muslims. How do they fight? As follows: the manoeuvres are of the simplest kind imaginable – the ships plunge forward, and shoot at one another from harquebuses and falconets when the distance is sufficient (very primitive firearms indeed) in order to reduce the enemy numbers as much as possible. This is followed by – yes, you guessed it, the good old boarding free-for-all. No manoeuvres! No rams! No catapults, either – those were replaced by the bombards. As a matter of fact, why would that be? Weren't the catapults more effective?    
-    
- Let us also consider the 1588 Battle of Gravelines, which is the name used in British historiography for a series of battles fought between the British fleet and the “Great Armada”. This is a seminal battle indeed – the first time when the dubious romance of hand-to-hand battle as the means of defeating the enemy gave way to the romance of the artillery duel, just as dubious. This did not make the battle any more elegant – small groups of ships and individual vessels brought together randomly by the blowing winds, and firing as many cannonballs and as much buckshot at one another as their fire power allows.    
- ..to be continued Poggio Bracciolini 18:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Criticism of Naval Warfare History