What do you think?
Rate this book
Chronology #3
History: Fiction or Science?
Dr.Prof Anatoly Fomenko and team dissect Almagest of ancient Ptolemy compiled allegedly in 150 a.d. and considered to be the corner stone of classical history. Their report Almagest was compiled in XVI-XVII cy from astronomical data of IX-XVI cy. As the King of astronomers Ptolemy is proven to be a medieval phantom, therefore standing aquitted of the crime he was accused by the late American astrophycist Robert Newton. Allegedly ancient Egyptian horoscopes painted in Pharaohs tombs of the Valley of Kings or cut in stone in Dendera and Esna for centuries considered impenetrable are decoded at last! All dates contained therein turn out definitely medieval and pertain to the XI cy a.d. the earliest. Well, how old is 'ancient' Egypt actually? Discover highly interesting angles, chunky facts and updates to the biographies of the famous medieval astronomers Tycho Brahe and Copernicus. Reading this book resembles a test flight to the distant past returning with a the past is eventually both drastically closer and dramatically different from one taught in school. Fasten your seatbelts, please. The publishers will pay a 10,000 dollars USA in cash to the first person who will not only declare but prove consistently, with adequate methods and in sufficient detail on the same or better academic level that the New Chronology theory of Full member of the Russian Academy of Science Dr Prof Anatoly T. Fomenko, Head of the Chair of the Differential Geometry of MSU and his team is wrong in their dating of Almagest.
- GenresHistory
805 pages, Paperback
First published July 9, 2007
9 people are currently reading
51 people want to read
About the author
A.T. Fomenko
62 books21 followersAnatoly Timofeevich Fomenko is a full Member (Academician) of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Full Member of the International Higher Education Academy of Sciences,Doctor of Physics and Mathematics, Professor, Head of the Moscow State University Section of Mathematics of the Department of Mathematics and Mechanics.Solved Plateau's Problem from the theory of minimal spectral surfaces. Author of the theory of invariants and topological classification of integrable Hamiltonian dynamic systems.
Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chornology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Many Russian scientists do not accept the "New Chronology" declaring it pseudoscientific, yet no mathematical calculations on which the New Chronology is based have been proved wrong. The supporters of the New Chronology include Garry Kasparov, a former chess champion, whom many consider the greatest chess player of all time.
Author of 200 scientific publications, 28 monographs and textbooks on mathematics, a specialist in geometry and topology, calculus of variations, symplectic topology, Hamiltonian geometry and mechanics, computer geometry.
Author of a number of books on the development of new empirico-statistical methods and their application to the analysis of historical chronicles as well as the chornology of antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Many Russian scientists do not accept the "New Chronology" declaring it pseudoscientific, yet no mathematical calculations on which the New Chronology is based have been proved wrong. The supporters of the New Chronology include Garry Kasparov, a former chess champion, whom many consider the greatest chess player of all time.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 21, 2019
For anyone who's followed me down the rabbit-hole so far: thank you. These were amusing to read, easy to critique, but depressing to think that people dedicated so much time to.
Finally we've reached the parallelisms, the core of his argument. This is when things finally start to make sense right? Right?!? Well, this section is certainly informative, I'll give it that. It shows exactly how far Fomenko is willing to go. His basic argument is that regnal lists from different periods in history line up too precisely and must be duplicates. Therefore these kings have been duplicated and are actually the same person. Sounds a logical proposition, right? Umm, well it is at least a testable theory.
I really hope this book isn't representative of the operation of Russian academia. Facts don't fit your model? Numbers not adding up right? Don't worry about it! We can just make up some new ones and that'll make it all better. To show you what I mean I present his chronology of the early and late Roman emperors (for no apparent reason labelled the second and third Roman empires) along with added comments and corrected dates. Misspelled names are corrected in []:
Sulla, ruled four years (82-78 BC)
Aurelian, ruled 5 years (270-275 AD)
-Sulla became dictator in 82 and resigned in 81 (1 year)
-Correct (5 years)
Strife, less than one year (78-77 BC)
Strife, less than one year (275-276 AD)
-No Strife at all (0 years)
-Tacitus was emperor, though not for long (I'll give him his 1 year)
Sertorius, 6 years (78-72 BC)
Probus, 6 years (276-282 AD)
-Famous Roman rebel in Spain. Did NOT rule Rome. Active from 83-72 (Active 11 years. Ruled Rome 0 years)
-Correct (6 years)
Strife, 2 years (72-71 BC)
Strife, 2 years (282-284 AD)
-Spartacus Rebellion 73-71 (3 years)
-Carus ruled. No strife (Actually 0 years)
Pompey the Great, 21 years (70-49 BC)
Diocletian the Divine(?), 21 years (284-305 AD)
-Pompey was never unopposed. Spent most of his time at war (Influential for 21 years)
-Diocletian had colleagues. Only sole ruler for 2 years (Co-ruled for 21 years)
Joint rule of Pompey and Caesar (first triumvirate), 11 years (60-49 BC)
Joint rule of Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus (first tetrarchy), 12 years (293-305 AD)
-Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had loose alliance from 60 on. The reason that it's called a triumvirate is that there were three of them. trio=three viri=men. It was never an official term. Crassus died in 53 (7 years)
-Diocletian ruled with Maximian from 286, Constantius and Galerius from 293. All ruled at same time. There was also never a second tetrarchy (Ruled with Maximian 19 years)
Strife, 4 years (49-45 BC)
Strife, 4 years (305-309 AD)
-Civil War lasted from 52-46 (6 years)
-Relative peace. More damningly nothing happened in 309 to validate a change from strife to non-strife. The date is chosen simply to match the first one (0 years)
Julius Caesar, the conqueror of first triumvirate, 1 year (45-44 BC)
Constantius Chlorus, the conqueror of first tetrarchy, 1 year (305-306 AD)
-Caesar had been ruling since at least 48. Held Rome since 52. And he never conquered the triumvirate since he was in it (4-8 years)
-Chlorus only just promoted to Augustus. Again, there only ever WAS one tetrarchy. And Constantius was a tetrarch till he died (1 year)
Triumvirate, 17 years (44-27 BC)
Tetrarchy, 18 years (306-324 AD)
-Antony dead by 30. Who were the other two triumvirs supposed to be? (Octavian unopposed 14 years)
-Tetrarchy died when Constantine killed Maxentius in 312 (6 years)
Augustus, the conqueror of the second triumvirate, 41 years (27 BC-14 AD) or 37 years (23 BC-14 AD)
Constantine, the conqueror of the second tetrarchy, 31 years (306-307[337?] AD) or 24 years (313-337) or 13 years (324-337) where 324 marks the death of Licinius
-Killed Antony in 30, but if he counts the period of co-rule with Constantine they why not with Augustus who ruled (or co-ruled) from 44 BC-14 AD? (58 years including co-rule. 44 sole rule)
-Doesn't the fact that he can have three different sets of dates for the same event, none of which match Augustsus, kind of show you how seriously messed up his process is? (31 years including co-rule. 13 years sole rule)
Please note what he does here. Constantine overlaps with the last one but Augustus doesn't. He's just removed 17 years without comment. You'll see more of that in a bit
The birth of Jesus Christ in the 27th year of Augustus (0 AD)
The birth of St. Basil the Great (the Great King) in the 27th year of Constantine (330 AD)
-Probably off (Herod died in 2 BC) but it is the traditional date.
-No way. Basil was born in 303. Constantine was still serving under Diocletian at that time. Also, "The Great King"? Where does that come from?
Tiberius, 23 years (14-17[37] AD)
Constantius II, 24 years (337-361 AD) or 21 years (340-361)
-Correct (23 years)
-Correct (24 years)
Struggle between Tiberius and Germanicus, 13 years (6-19 AD)
Struggle between Constantius II and Constance[Constans], 13 years (337-350 AD)
-Germanicus rose to command in 14. Tiberius didn't rule till 14 either (5 years)
-Constans is correct but he left out third brother Constantine II (13 years)
Caligula, 4 years (37-41 AD)
Julian, 2 years (361-363 AD)
-True (4 years)
-True (2 years)
Strife, less than one year (41 AD)
Strife, less than one year (363 AD)
-Claudius succeeded immediately after. No "Strife" (0 years)
-The "Strife" was Jovian's rule which he will list later (1 years)
Claudius, 13 years (41-54 AD)
Valentinian, 11 years (364-375 AD)
-True (13 years)
-True (11 years)
Joint rule of Claudius and Pallantius within the "triumvirate", not more than 13 years (41-54 AD)
Joint rule of Valentinian and Valens within the "triumvirate", 11 years (367-375)
-Pallantius never ruled. Also, there was no triumvirate after Augustus. Fomenko has no idea what he's talking about (0 years)
-Valens ruled from 364. Not sure why he changed it. 14 years is closer to 13 than 11 (14 years)
Nero, 14 years (54-68)
Valens, 14 years (364-378)
-True (14 years)
-True, but remember: Valens was only co-ruler. And a junior one at that (14 years)
Joint rule of Nero with Burrus and Seneca, 8 years (54-62)
Joint rule of Valens with Valentinian and Gratian, 11 years (364-375)
-Burrus and Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until after this time (0 years) Finally, a Match!
Joint rule of Nero and Seneca, 11 years (54-65)
Joint rule of Valens and Gratian, 11 years (367-378)
-Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until 375 (3 years)
Galba, 1 year (68-69)
Jovian, 1 year (363-364)
-True (1 year)
-I can't help but notice that Galba came after Nero while Jovian came before Valens. He's changing the order of dates again to make them fit. Also, he already listed Jovian's reign under a period of "strife" earlier (1 year)
Strife, less than 1 year (69)
Strife, less than 1 year (378)
-True, though it lasted MORE than one year (1 year)
-True, though again, it lasted MORE than one year. Gothic War not ended until 382 (4 years)
Two Vespasians, 12 years (69-81)
Gratian and Valentinian II (after the death of Valens), 13 years (379-392)
-True (12 years)
-Gratian died in 383 (4 years)
Domitian, 15 years (81-96)
Theodosius the Great, 16 years (379-395)
-True (15 years)
-True, though please note the comparison. Domitian was a persecutor while Theodosius was THE Orthodox Christian ruler after Constantine. Is this comparison one that Christian authors would wish to make? (16 years)
Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-True (2 years)
-Eugenius isn't an emperor and 'rules' during Theodosius' rule. Date fudging again (0 years)
Joint rule of Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Joint rule of Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-What's the point of listing them twice?
Trajan, 19 years (98-117) or 16 years (101-117)
Arcadius, 13 years (395-408)
-The first dates are true. Nerva died in 98 so why Fomenko would be confused I don't know. Probably because he wants to throw the dates into doubt (19 years)
-Arcadius was co-ruler with his brother Honorius (13 years)
Adrian[Hadrian], 21 years (117-138)
Honorius, 28 years (395-423)
-True (21 years)
-Honorius was co-ruler with his brother Arcadius so he can't be matched with Hadrian who succeeded Trajan (28 years, but when brother's years are removed only 9 years)
Antoninus Pius, 23 years (138-161)
Aetius, 21 years (423-444) or 14 years (423-438)
-True (23 years)
-Aetius wasn't emperor, didn't 'rule' until 430s. and was the most important man in the state until he died in 454 (0 years)
Marcus Aurelius, 19 years (161-180)
Valentinian III, 18 years (437-455) or or 11 years (444-455)
-True (19 years)
-Valentinian ruled since 425. Please note he's counted as co-ruling with Aetius. More date fudging (30 years)
Commodus, 16 years (176-192) or 12 years (180-192)
Recimer [Ricimer], 16 years (456-472)
-Ruled after 180 (12 years)
Ricimer never ruled (0 years)
Pertinax, less than 1 year (193)
Olybrius, less than 1 year (472)
-True (1 year)
-True, but skipped over 5 other emperors (1 year)
Didinus[Didius] Julianus, less than 1 year (193)
Glycerius, less than 1 year (473,474)
-Didius Julianus lasted 2 months (<1 year)
-Glycerius lasted 1 year and 3 months (>1 year)
Clodius Albinus, less than 1 year (193)
Julius Nepos, less than 1 year (474)
-Usurper who never gained recognition. Lasted til 197 (4 years if you count it. 0 if you don't)
-Ruled just over 1 year (1 year)
Pescennius Niger, 1 year (193-194)
Romulus Augustulus, 1 year (475-476)
-Usurper who never gained recognition (1 year if you count it)
-True (1 year)
Septimius Severus, 18 years (193-211)
Odoacer, 17 years (476-493)
-True (18 years)
-True, but not a Roman. Empire fell with Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was a Goth (17 years)
Caracalla, 24 years (193-217) or 6 years (211-217)
Theodoricor[Theodoric] the Great, 29 years (497-526) or 33 years (493-526)
-Ruled after 211. technically co-ruled after 209 but certainly wasn't doing any ruling in 193 at the age of five (6 years)
-The later date is correct. Still not a Roman though. Gothic king of Italy (33 years)
Note that in that entire chart there are only 4 that match exactly (Including the periods of "strife") and a few others that come close. Please also note that the period from 82 BC to 217 AD is 299 years long while the period from 270 to 526 is 256. So somewhere in a span of less than 300 years he managed to lose 43 of them. That's 1/6 the total years he's dealing with. Yet if you look at his chart the length matches almost exactly. That should tell you a lot about his methods.
A moment's glance should tell anyone how lethal this is to his argument. If he's arguing that the standard regnal lengths are too precisely similar to be a coincidence then he needs to use those same regnal lengths. He can't just make them up or he's just showing a similarity between two imaginary numbers of his own invention.
But it gets even worse than this. Fomenko actually claims to see patterns in the emperors being "duplicated". He helps himself here by creating an arbitrary start date. Sulla was neither the first nor last to seize sole power in the Republic and Aurelian was but the forerunner to Diocletian's reformed Empire. So what reason could Fomenko have for choosing to start with them? They're matched because both were remembered for their cruelty. How clever! Well done. Find two people renowned for their cruelty and force them to merge into one. That's exactly the kind of wooly thinking I've come to expect from these books. As usual Fomenko has forced a parallel without mentioning that he's changing things around to do so. Ignoring the fact that Aurelian's reputation for cruelty comes from the Historia Augusta, which is almost as pseudo-historical as this work, the simple fact of the matter is that the two have basically nothing else in common. Sulla's reforms vanished within a decade of his (natural) death while Aurelian's paved the way for his more successful successor Diocletian. Following this we again see Fomenko's number fudging. The use of Strife to cover any periods that don't match is the most obvious one. Another is the use of Sertorius as a counterpoint to Probus. Probus was indeed a 3rd Century emperor but Sertorius was a Roman rebel, albeit a famous and not wholly despised one. Given the number of Roman armies sent against him it seems hard to believe that he was ruling Rome from all the way over in Spain.
Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus are also radically altered. Again Fomenko has distorted the facts to make it fit by removing participants. Diocletian had three colleagues not merely one. What's more, Constantius wasn't his main colleague but merely his junior partner. Maximian was Diocletian's partner in government and he ruled not from 293-305 but from 286. But using him would throw Fomenko's calculation off, especially given how much importance he gives to Constantius. He calls Constantius Caesar's double even though he did nothing to merit such a comparison. When Diocletian resigns he lists one of his periods of strife and says that Constantius conquers the Tetrarchy as Caesar conquers the Triumvirate. Both are wrong but to focus on Constantius all that he does to conquer the tetrarchy is die. Within a year of Diocletian's resignation he's dead so how he's able to posthumously conquer the tetrarchy is beyond me. Inasmuch as the tetrarchy was destroyed not conquered (which may be a translation issue) it was done by Constantius' son Constantine who spent not four years but twenty changing the tetrarchy into a monarchy. As for Caesar he didn't conquer or even destroy the triumvirate. It was never a formal system. When Crassus died in 53 and Pompey refused to grant Caesar a consulship in 50 the alliance ended. If anyone 'conquered' it, it was Pompey who maintained his authority by denying Caesar protection from his enemies. So while I suppose Constantine could be compared to Caesar his father can't which ruins Fomenko's 'theory' by throwing the dates off.
Another amusing association is between Caligula and Julian. Caligula was a well-known sadistic tyrant (although Fomenko says little is known of him) while Julian was an (over)educated man who tried to bring paganism back. But of course they're the same person because they both wore the military sandals (caligae) which gave Caligula his name. The fact that all Roman Emperors wore such sandals while on campaign is skimmed over. So just to be clear: all the most important figures bear no resemblance to their supposed double, and the few similarities he can find are too facile to mean anything.
A few of my favorite examples from his more detailed comparison:
Both Augustus and Constantine relied on the military to get them into power.
Good point Dr. Fomenko. Good point...
"Belisarius is a military leader. Justinian is an emperor. The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel.
Caesar is a military leader. Pompey is a number one public figure. Friends initially, foes eventually.
Achilles is a military leader. Agamemnon is the 'principal royalty'. Friends at first, enemies afterwards.
Valerius is a military leader, while Tarquin the Proud is the 'main king'. Hostile in the beginning; mortal enemies afterwards." (page 195)
Now let me try one: General McChrystal is a military leader. President Obama is a 'president.' The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel. Hey, that's kinda fun! Good thing there can't possibly be more than one person that vague and unconvincing comparison could describe.
And my personal favorite: "Second Empire. A while ago Tiberius was adopted by Octavian Augustus. Tiberius is known to have died being 'strangled with blankets.' In a sense, this death may be considered unexpected.
Third Empire. Constantius II is the son of Constantine I. Constantius II, as historians tell us, 'died unexpectedly.'"
Death by blankets is 'unexpected' now? What gives? Seriously, how a dying 78-year-old man being hurried to his death can be compared with a 44-year-old man dying of an unexpected illness is beyond me.
So now you see the problems with his comparisons. They're either hopelessly vague or they take one case and force it to fit another. Basically, what Fomenko has shown is that human life is repetitive, and he can't even do that without messing with the evidence.
Speaking of the evidence, there is something seriously wrong with his way of footnoting. In the bibliography at the back he assigns every book a number and then uses that number in the text. I don't know if that's standard for Russian Mathematical works but it certainly isn't for English historical ones. Or French ones. Or German ones.. Or Italian ones... And there's a good reason no one uses it, it's confusing. You have to go all the way to the back of the book and scroll through hundreds of books in no sort of order to find the one you want, only to find that it's in Russian anyway and hasn't been updated since before the Russian Revolution. There are actually a large number from before WW2. I guess he didn't want to use any books he hadn't already read in childhood. This sourcing method is really frustrating when he gives non-standard citations for standard sources. For example: Plutarch. Fomenko states that Plutarch calls Sulla an Emperor. Since such an office didn't exist in the Republic I decided to look up what word he was mistaking for 'Emperor.' But the citation is this: ([660], Vol. 2, pages 137-138). If you look that up in the Bibliography you find: Plutarch, Comparative Biographies, Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961. Since I don't read Russian I have no way of finding that page. This is why proper historians use chapters and verse (like the Bible) to identify their sources. These don't vary with the translations. And while it's hard to judge from a title, that book doesn't sound like it's in Greek. Which means that he's basing his statement about a technical term on a book that translated that technical term for him.
This is entirely in keeping with Fomenko's bias and standards of evidence. Brutus is associated with a whole slew of people because Fomenko decides his name comes from 'brat' which means brother. The problem is that 'brat' is a RUSSIAN word meaning brother. He passes by that without question but he's basically assuming that Russian is the originator of all languages. That would be like me claiming Caesar was a sailor since his name is similar to the word 'sea.' It is decidedly typical of Fomenko's extreme nationalistic agenda to assume that everything revolves around the Russians.
A minor example of his standards, but an amusing one for me, is his statement that Caesar was called Emperor on coins decades before that office even existed. This is particularly amusing for me since Caesar BECAME the word for emperor as did Augustus after his successor. The Romans never really developed a word for Emperor outside of using those two names. It'd be like claiming that Martin Luther King can't have been from the '60s since America wasn't a monarchy at that time.
Finally we've reached the parallelisms, the core of his argument. This is when things finally start to make sense right? Right?!? Well, this section is certainly informative, I'll give it that. It shows exactly how far Fomenko is willing to go. His basic argument is that regnal lists from different periods in history line up too precisely and must be duplicates. Therefore these kings have been duplicated and are actually the same person. Sounds a logical proposition, right? Umm, well it is at least a testable theory.
I really hope this book isn't representative of the operation of Russian academia. Facts don't fit your model? Numbers not adding up right? Don't worry about it! We can just make up some new ones and that'll make it all better. To show you what I mean I present his chronology of the early and late Roman emperors (for no apparent reason labelled the second and third Roman empires) along with added comments and corrected dates. Misspelled names are corrected in []:
Sulla, ruled four years (82-78 BC)
Aurelian, ruled 5 years (270-275 AD)
-Sulla became dictator in 82 and resigned in 81 (1 year)
-Correct (5 years)
Strife, less than one year (78-77 BC)
Strife, less than one year (275-276 AD)
-No Strife at all (0 years)
-Tacitus was emperor, though not for long (I'll give him his 1 year)
Sertorius, 6 years (78-72 BC)
Probus, 6 years (276-282 AD)
-Famous Roman rebel in Spain. Did NOT rule Rome. Active from 83-72 (Active 11 years. Ruled Rome 0 years)
-Correct (6 years)
Strife, 2 years (72-71 BC)
Strife, 2 years (282-284 AD)
-Spartacus Rebellion 73-71 (3 years)
-Carus ruled. No strife (Actually 0 years)
Pompey the Great, 21 years (70-49 BC)
Diocletian the Divine(?), 21 years (284-305 AD)
-Pompey was never unopposed. Spent most of his time at war (Influential for 21 years)
-Diocletian had colleagues. Only sole ruler for 2 years (Co-ruled for 21 years)
Joint rule of Pompey and Caesar (first triumvirate), 11 years (60-49 BC)
Joint rule of Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus (first tetrarchy), 12 years (293-305 AD)
-Pompey, Crassus, and Caesar had loose alliance from 60 on. The reason that it's called a triumvirate is that there were three of them. trio=three viri=men. It was never an official term. Crassus died in 53 (7 years)
-Diocletian ruled with Maximian from 286, Constantius and Galerius from 293. All ruled at same time. There was also never a second tetrarchy (Ruled with Maximian 19 years)
Strife, 4 years (49-45 BC)
Strife, 4 years (305-309 AD)
-Civil War lasted from 52-46 (6 years)
-Relative peace. More damningly nothing happened in 309 to validate a change from strife to non-strife. The date is chosen simply to match the first one (0 years)
Julius Caesar, the conqueror of first triumvirate, 1 year (45-44 BC)
Constantius Chlorus, the conqueror of first tetrarchy, 1 year (305-306 AD)
-Caesar had been ruling since at least 48. Held Rome since 52. And he never conquered the triumvirate since he was in it (4-8 years)
-Chlorus only just promoted to Augustus. Again, there only ever WAS one tetrarchy. And Constantius was a tetrarch till he died (1 year)
Triumvirate, 17 years (44-27 BC)
Tetrarchy, 18 years (306-324 AD)
-Antony dead by 30. Who were the other two triumvirs supposed to be? (Octavian unopposed 14 years)
-Tetrarchy died when Constantine killed Maxentius in 312 (6 years)
Augustus, the conqueror of the second triumvirate, 41 years (27 BC-14 AD) or 37 years (23 BC-14 AD)
Constantine, the conqueror of the second tetrarchy, 31 years (306-307[337?] AD) or 24 years (313-337) or 13 years (324-337) where 324 marks the death of Licinius
-Killed Antony in 30, but if he counts the period of co-rule with Constantine they why not with Augustus who ruled (or co-ruled) from 44 BC-14 AD? (58 years including co-rule. 44 sole rule)
-Doesn't the fact that he can have three different sets of dates for the same event, none of which match Augustsus, kind of show you how seriously messed up his process is? (31 years including co-rule. 13 years sole rule)
Please note what he does here. Constantine overlaps with the last one but Augustus doesn't. He's just removed 17 years without comment. You'll see more of that in a bit
The birth of Jesus Christ in the 27th year of Augustus (0 AD)
The birth of St. Basil the Great (the Great King) in the 27th year of Constantine (330 AD)
-Probably off (Herod died in 2 BC) but it is the traditional date.
-No way. Basil was born in 303. Constantine was still serving under Diocletian at that time. Also, "The Great King"? Where does that come from?
Tiberius, 23 years (14-17[37] AD)
Constantius II, 24 years (337-361 AD) or 21 years (340-361)
-Correct (23 years)
-Correct (24 years)
Struggle between Tiberius and Germanicus, 13 years (6-19 AD)
Struggle between Constantius II and Constance[Constans], 13 years (337-350 AD)
-Germanicus rose to command in 14. Tiberius didn't rule till 14 either (5 years)
-Constans is correct but he left out third brother Constantine II (13 years)
Caligula, 4 years (37-41 AD)
Julian, 2 years (361-363 AD)
-True (4 years)
-True (2 years)
Strife, less than one year (41 AD)
Strife, less than one year (363 AD)
-Claudius succeeded immediately after. No "Strife" (0 years)
-The "Strife" was Jovian's rule which he will list later (1 years)
Claudius, 13 years (41-54 AD)
Valentinian, 11 years (364-375 AD)
-True (13 years)
-True (11 years)
Joint rule of Claudius and Pallantius within the "triumvirate", not more than 13 years (41-54 AD)
Joint rule of Valentinian and Valens within the "triumvirate", 11 years (367-375)
-Pallantius never ruled. Also, there was no triumvirate after Augustus. Fomenko has no idea what he's talking about (0 years)
-Valens ruled from 364. Not sure why he changed it. 14 years is closer to 13 than 11 (14 years)
Nero, 14 years (54-68)
Valens, 14 years (364-378)
-True (14 years)
-True, but remember: Valens was only co-ruler. And a junior one at that (14 years)
Joint rule of Nero with Burrus and Seneca, 8 years (54-62)
Joint rule of Valens with Valentinian and Gratian, 11 years (364-375)
-Burrus and Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until after this time (0 years) Finally, a Match!
Joint rule of Nero and Seneca, 11 years (54-65)
Joint rule of Valens and Gratian, 11 years (367-378)
-Seneca never ruled (0 years)
-Gratian didn't rule until 375 (3 years)
Galba, 1 year (68-69)
Jovian, 1 year (363-364)
-True (1 year)
-I can't help but notice that Galba came after Nero while Jovian came before Valens. He's changing the order of dates again to make them fit. Also, he already listed Jovian's reign under a period of "strife" earlier (1 year)
Strife, less than 1 year (69)
Strife, less than 1 year (378)
-True, though it lasted MORE than one year (1 year)
-True, though again, it lasted MORE than one year. Gothic War not ended until 382 (4 years)
Two Vespasians, 12 years (69-81)
Gratian and Valentinian II (after the death of Valens), 13 years (379-392)
-True (12 years)
-Gratian died in 383 (4 years)
Domitian, 15 years (81-96)
Theodosius the Great, 16 years (379-395)
-True (15 years)
-True, though please note the comparison. Domitian was a persecutor while Theodosius was THE Orthodox Christian ruler after Constantine. Is this comparison one that Christian authors would wish to make? (16 years)
Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-True (2 years)
-Eugenius isn't an emperor and 'rules' during Theodosius' rule. Date fudging again (0 years)
Joint rule of Nerva, 2 years (96-98)
Joint rule of Eugenius, 2 years (392-394)
-What's the point of listing them twice?
Trajan, 19 years (98-117) or 16 years (101-117)
Arcadius, 13 years (395-408)
-The first dates are true. Nerva died in 98 so why Fomenko would be confused I don't know. Probably because he wants to throw the dates into doubt (19 years)
-Arcadius was co-ruler with his brother Honorius (13 years)
Adrian[Hadrian], 21 years (117-138)
Honorius, 28 years (395-423)
-True (21 years)
-Honorius was co-ruler with his brother Arcadius so he can't be matched with Hadrian who succeeded Trajan (28 years, but when brother's years are removed only 9 years)
Antoninus Pius, 23 years (138-161)
Aetius, 21 years (423-444) or 14 years (423-438)
-True (23 years)
-Aetius wasn't emperor, didn't 'rule' until 430s. and was the most important man in the state until he died in 454 (0 years)
Marcus Aurelius, 19 years (161-180)
Valentinian III, 18 years (437-455) or or 11 years (444-455)
-True (19 years)
-Valentinian ruled since 425. Please note he's counted as co-ruling with Aetius. More date fudging (30 years)
Commodus, 16 years (176-192) or 12 years (180-192)
Recimer [Ricimer], 16 years (456-472)
-Ruled after 180 (12 years)
Ricimer never ruled (0 years)
Pertinax, less than 1 year (193)
Olybrius, less than 1 year (472)
-True (1 year)
-True, but skipped over 5 other emperors (1 year)
Didinus[Didius] Julianus, less than 1 year (193)
Glycerius, less than 1 year (473,474)
-Didius Julianus lasted 2 months (<1 year)
-Glycerius lasted 1 year and 3 months (>1 year)
Clodius Albinus, less than 1 year (193)
Julius Nepos, less than 1 year (474)
-Usurper who never gained recognition. Lasted til 197 (4 years if you count it. 0 if you don't)
-Ruled just over 1 year (1 year)
Pescennius Niger, 1 year (193-194)
Romulus Augustulus, 1 year (475-476)
-Usurper who never gained recognition (1 year if you count it)
-True (1 year)
Septimius Severus, 18 years (193-211)
Odoacer, 17 years (476-493)
-True (18 years)
-True, but not a Roman. Empire fell with Romulus Augustulus. Odoacer was a Goth (17 years)
Caracalla, 24 years (193-217) or 6 years (211-217)
Theodoricor[Theodoric] the Great, 29 years (497-526) or 33 years (493-526)
-Ruled after 211. technically co-ruled after 209 but certainly wasn't doing any ruling in 193 at the age of five (6 years)
-The later date is correct. Still not a Roman though. Gothic king of Italy (33 years)
Note that in that entire chart there are only 4 that match exactly (Including the periods of "strife") and a few others that come close. Please also note that the period from 82 BC to 217 AD is 299 years long while the period from 270 to 526 is 256. So somewhere in a span of less than 300 years he managed to lose 43 of them. That's 1/6 the total years he's dealing with. Yet if you look at his chart the length matches almost exactly. That should tell you a lot about his methods.
A moment's glance should tell anyone how lethal this is to his argument. If he's arguing that the standard regnal lengths are too precisely similar to be a coincidence then he needs to use those same regnal lengths. He can't just make them up or he's just showing a similarity between two imaginary numbers of his own invention.
But it gets even worse than this. Fomenko actually claims to see patterns in the emperors being "duplicated". He helps himself here by creating an arbitrary start date. Sulla was neither the first nor last to seize sole power in the Republic and Aurelian was but the forerunner to Diocletian's reformed Empire. So what reason could Fomenko have for choosing to start with them? They're matched because both were remembered for their cruelty. How clever! Well done. Find two people renowned for their cruelty and force them to merge into one. That's exactly the kind of wooly thinking I've come to expect from these books. As usual Fomenko has forced a parallel without mentioning that he's changing things around to do so. Ignoring the fact that Aurelian's reputation for cruelty comes from the Historia Augusta, which is almost as pseudo-historical as this work, the simple fact of the matter is that the two have basically nothing else in common. Sulla's reforms vanished within a decade of his (natural) death while Aurelian's paved the way for his more successful successor Diocletian. Following this we again see Fomenko's number fudging. The use of Strife to cover any periods that don't match is the most obvious one. Another is the use of Sertorius as a counterpoint to Probus. Probus was indeed a 3rd Century emperor but Sertorius was a Roman rebel, albeit a famous and not wholly despised one. Given the number of Roman armies sent against him it seems hard to believe that he was ruling Rome from all the way over in Spain.
Diocletian and Constantius Chlorus are also radically altered. Again Fomenko has distorted the facts to make it fit by removing participants. Diocletian had three colleagues not merely one. What's more, Constantius wasn't his main colleague but merely his junior partner. Maximian was Diocletian's partner in government and he ruled not from 293-305 but from 286. But using him would throw Fomenko's calculation off, especially given how much importance he gives to Constantius. He calls Constantius Caesar's double even though he did nothing to merit such a comparison. When Diocletian resigns he lists one of his periods of strife and says that Constantius conquers the Tetrarchy as Caesar conquers the Triumvirate. Both are wrong but to focus on Constantius all that he does to conquer the tetrarchy is die. Within a year of Diocletian's resignation he's dead so how he's able to posthumously conquer the tetrarchy is beyond me. Inasmuch as the tetrarchy was destroyed not conquered (which may be a translation issue) it was done by Constantius' son Constantine who spent not four years but twenty changing the tetrarchy into a monarchy. As for Caesar he didn't conquer or even destroy the triumvirate. It was never a formal system. When Crassus died in 53 and Pompey refused to grant Caesar a consulship in 50 the alliance ended. If anyone 'conquered' it, it was Pompey who maintained his authority by denying Caesar protection from his enemies. So while I suppose Constantine could be compared to Caesar his father can't which ruins Fomenko's 'theory' by throwing the dates off.
Another amusing association is between Caligula and Julian. Caligula was a well-known sadistic tyrant (although Fomenko says little is known of him) while Julian was an (over)educated man who tried to bring paganism back. But of course they're the same person because they both wore the military sandals (caligae) which gave Caligula his name. The fact that all Roman Emperors wore such sandals while on campaign is skimmed over. So just to be clear: all the most important figures bear no resemblance to their supposed double, and the few similarities he can find are too facile to mean anything.
A few of my favorite examples from his more detailed comparison:
Both Augustus and Constantine relied on the military to get them into power.
Good point Dr. Fomenko. Good point...
"Belisarius is a military leader. Justinian is an emperor. The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel.
Caesar is a military leader. Pompey is a number one public figure. Friends initially, foes eventually.
Achilles is a military leader. Agamemnon is the 'principal royalty'. Friends at first, enemies afterwards.
Valerius is a military leader, while Tarquin the Proud is the 'main king'. Hostile in the beginning; mortal enemies afterwards." (page 195)
Now let me try one: General McChrystal is a military leader. President Obama is a 'president.' The relationship is initially a benevolent one, but ends in a quarrel. Hey, that's kinda fun! Good thing there can't possibly be more than one person that vague and unconvincing comparison could describe.
And my personal favorite: "Second Empire. A while ago Tiberius was adopted by Octavian Augustus. Tiberius is known to have died being 'strangled with blankets.' In a sense, this death may be considered unexpected.
Third Empire. Constantius II is the son of Constantine I. Constantius II, as historians tell us, 'died unexpectedly.'"
Death by blankets is 'unexpected' now? What gives? Seriously, how a dying 78-year-old man being hurried to his death can be compared with a 44-year-old man dying of an unexpected illness is beyond me.
So now you see the problems with his comparisons. They're either hopelessly vague or they take one case and force it to fit another. Basically, what Fomenko has shown is that human life is repetitive, and he can't even do that without messing with the evidence.
Speaking of the evidence, there is something seriously wrong with his way of footnoting. In the bibliography at the back he assigns every book a number and then uses that number in the text. I don't know if that's standard for Russian Mathematical works but it certainly isn't for English historical ones. Or French ones. Or German ones.. Or Italian ones... And there's a good reason no one uses it, it's confusing. You have to go all the way to the back of the book and scroll through hundreds of books in no sort of order to find the one you want, only to find that it's in Russian anyway and hasn't been updated since before the Russian Revolution. There are actually a large number from before WW2. I guess he didn't want to use any books he hadn't already read in childhood. This sourcing method is really frustrating when he gives non-standard citations for standard sources. For example: Plutarch. Fomenko states that Plutarch calls Sulla an Emperor. Since such an office didn't exist in the Republic I decided to look up what word he was mistaking for 'Emperor.' But the citation is this: ([660], Vol. 2, pages 137-138). If you look that up in the Bibliography you find: Plutarch, Comparative Biographies, Vol. 1: Moscow, USSR AN Press, 1961. Since I don't read Russian I have no way of finding that page. This is why proper historians use chapters and verse (like the Bible) to identify their sources. These don't vary with the translations. And while it's hard to judge from a title, that book doesn't sound like it's in Greek. Which means that he's basing his statement about a technical term on a book that translated that technical term for him.
This is entirely in keeping with Fomenko's bias and standards of evidence. Brutus is associated with a whole slew of people because Fomenko decides his name comes from 'brat' which means brother. The problem is that 'brat' is a RUSSIAN word meaning brother. He passes by that without question but he's basically assuming that Russian is the originator of all languages. That would be like me claiming Caesar was a sailor since his name is similar to the word 'sea.' It is decidedly typical of Fomenko's extreme nationalistic agenda to assume that everything revolves around the Russians.
A minor example of his standards, but an amusing one for me, is his statement that Caesar was called Emperor on coins decades before that office even existed. This is particularly amusing for me since Caesar BECAME the word for emperor as did Augustus after his successor. The Romans never really developed a word for Emperor outside of using those two names. It'd be like claiming that Martin Luther King can't have been from the '60s since America wasn't a monarchy at that time.
Displaying 1 of 1 review