Were 460 years added to the official chronology?

I don't see a record of a big vulcano eruption, so prominently seen in Greenland ice cores Pierre has shown us.
Do you see it?

Have a look here:
538Pompeioupolis earthquake
(John Malalas)
(MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXI – Page 193) (Zuqnin)

In the eleventh year of Justinian… a great and terrible comet appeared. (PZ)
(MtS, Book IX Chapter XXIV page 209)

the great Beirut earthquake and tsunami occurred in the same year.
(MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXIX – page 241-247).
539Comet, famine, Vesuvius rumble
The Wars, Procopius: [539 A.D.] Book II, IV

Antioch earthquake
(John Malalas)
(MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXI – Page 193)
540Cometary bombardment
(Chinese historical records)

Comet bombardment
(Gildas),

Flood Collapse of the great dam of Marib in Yemen
(Sheba).

If you haven't already read "From Paul to Mark", you might want to do so as it may help you to get accustomed to how to read ancient texts and note when the author is obfuscating or where possible interpolations or redactions have occurred.

Above we see an almost throwaway remark about Vesuvius in the year 539. (Keeping in mind that dating could be inaccurate for any number of reasons. Way more interesting are the other events surrounding that mention of Vesuvius.

Below is the full text for those years with discussion:

538​

In that year Pompeioupolis in Mysis suffered from the wrath of God. When the earthquake occurred, the ground suddenly split open and half the city with its inhabitants was swallowed up. They were beneath the ground and the sound of their voices was carried to the survivors. (John Malalas)

Michael the Syrian places this event in the second year of Justinan which is incorrect. It’s obvious that his account is taken straight from John Malalas though somehow he has managed to add the beginning line which misdates the event. This just highlights how totally garbled these things can get.

In the second year of the reign Justinianus II, there was a violent earthquake in which Pompeiopolis in Mysia [was destroyed]. All the ground cracked and opened from one side to the other side of the city, with the houses and people living inside fell into it. The cry of pain was their clamor, without anyone being able to help them in any way. (MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXI – Page 193)

Pompeiopolis was struck. This (city), Pompeiopolis, was not (only) overthrown like other cities by a heavy earthquake which befell it, but (also) a terrible sign took place in it, when the earth suddenly opened and also was torn apart from one side of the city to the other: half of (the city) together with (its) inhabitants fell in and was swallowed up in (this) very frightful and terrifying chasm. In this way it “went down to Sheol alive”, as is written. When the people had fallen down into this fearful and terrible chasm and were swallowed up into the depth of the earth, the sound of clamor of all of them together rose bitterly and terribly from the earth to the survivors for many days. Their souls were tormented by the sound of clamor of (the people who had been swallowed up), which rose from the depth of Sheol, but they were unable to do anything to help them. (Zuqnin)

In the eleventh year of Justinian… a great and terrible comet appeared in the sky at evening-time for one hundred days. (PZ)

In the 11th year of Justinianus reign, which is the year 850 of the Greeks, a great and terrible comet appeared for many days, during the evening. And in that same year, the peace between the empires was broken. (MtS, Book IX Chapter XXIV page 209)


In a second account of the same event, Michael the Syrian places it in the 23rd year of Justinian’s reign. He also says that the great Beirut earthquake and tsunami occurred in the same year.

In the land of Mysia, half the city was engulfed. Pompeiopolis6 and its inhabitants went down alive into the earth with their homes. The cry of their groan rose from the midst of the earth for a long time while no one could rescue them. - Other cities were also knocked over in the same country. (MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXIX – page 241-247)

This must have prompted Justinian to issue a second edict that prohibited Jews from owning Christian slaves. These prohibitions against Jews would be recorded in the Justinian Code as 1.10.2 and 1.3.54.

In 538 at the 3rd synod of Orleans, Canon 13 re-stated for its region that Jews could not hold public office, become judges, own Christian slaves, employ Christian servants, or marry Christians. Christians were also forbidden to attend Jewish festivities and celebrations. Canon 13 also declared Christians could not convert to Judaism. Orleans declared the clergy was even forbidden to eat with Jews. The 538 synod at Orleans decreed that Jews had to be out of all Christians' site during the Easter festivities because their appearance is an insult to Christianity. Canon 30 stated:

From the Thursday before Easter for four days, Jews may not appear in the company of Christians.

The Merovingian King Childebert approved the measure. To further the economic toll on Jews, Canon 30 stated that any slave of a Jew could attain freedom just by converting to Christianity. Christian leaders of Gaul, like those of Rome and Constantinople, made Christianity the religion of the region by making it illegal to evangelize any other faith. In the pluralist religious world of late antiquity, Christian leaders sought to wipe out all competitors by law, by decree, by persecution, by economic sanctions, and by force if necessary.

War continued in Italy, we are told. Belisarius moved north and took Milan. The Ostrogoths then laid siege to the city.

539​

The war in Italy continued. The Franks sent 10,000 Burgundians to help out. With their help, the Ostrogoths continued the siege of Milan, starving the residents. After negotiations, the Ostrogoths allowed the military garrison to leave and then they went in and massacred all the male inhabitants and took all women and children as slaves which they gave to the Burgundians. They then pull down the walls of the city and retreated back over the Po. The Franks withdrew from participation due to a sickness that decimated their army. Meanwhile, Justinian issued an edict that all weapons production was to be limited to state-owned factories.

The Wars, Procopius: [539 A.D.] At that time also the comet appeared, at first about as long as a tall man, but later much larger. And the end of it was toward the west and its beginning toward the east, and it followed behind the sun itself. For the sun was in Capricorn and it was in Sagittarius. And some called it "the swordfish" because it was of goodly length and very sharp at the point, and others called it "the bearded star"; it was seen for more than forty days. Now those who were wise in these matters disagreed utterly with each other, and one announced that one thing, another that another thing was indicated by this star; but I only write what took place and I leave to each one to judge by the outcome as he wishes.

Straightway a mighty Hunnic army crossing the Danube River fell as a scourge upon all Europe, a thing which had happened many times before, but which had never brought such a multitude of woes nor such dreadful ones to the people of that land. ~ Book II, IV

[Writing about conditions in Rome while there with Belisarius] But at the beginning of the spring equinox famine and pestilence together fell upon the inhabitants of the city. There was still, it is true, some grain for the soldiers, though no other kind of provisions, but the grain-supply of the rest of the Romans had been exhausted, and actual famine as well as pestilence was pressing hard upon them. ~ Book VI, III

And the Huns likewise, after they had made their camp near by, as I have said, were on their part causing the Goths no less trouble, so that these as well as the Romans were now feeling the pressure of famine, since they no longer had freedom to bring in their food-supplies as formerly. And pestilence too fell upon them and was destroying many, and especially in the camp which they had last made, close by the Appian Way, as I have previously stated. And the few of their number who had not perished withdrew from that camp to the other camps. The Huns also suffered in the same way, and so returned to Rome. Such was the course of events here. …

At that time the mountain of Vesuvius rumbled, and though it did not break forth in eruption, still because of the rumbling it led people to expect with great certainty that there would be an eruption. And for this reason it came to pass that the inhabitants fell into great terror. ~ Book VI, IV


It seems to me that the author protests too much in claiming that Vesuvius did NOT erupt.

It was at that time that Antioch suffered its sixth calamity from the wrath of God. The earthquake that occurred lasted for one hour and was accompanied by a terrible roaring sound, so the buildings that had been reconstructed after the former shocks collapsed, as did the walls and some of the churches. (John Malalas)


Michael the Syrian has also misdated this one, putting it with the also misdated Pompeiopolis earthquake in the second year of Justinian II:

Antioch was also knocked over by an earthquake. it was the sixth time, four years after it was ruined for the fifth time. At the same time as the earthquake, the sound of a violent thunder rang in the air, and from the earth came a voice of terror, like a roaring bull. All churches collapsed, same for the houses new or old, and for the surrounding villages. When the people dead of suffocation were discovered, 4770 were counted. Those who escaped fled to the cities and to the mountains. The city remained abandoned for five months, then a few people came back. … Then, the same year the winter was rigorous, and there were three cubits of snow. (MtS, Book IX – Chapter XXI – Page 193)

540​

Chinese historical records of AD 540 say : "Dragons fought in the pond of the K'uh o. They went westward....In the places they passed, all the trees were broken. "[1]

This item above strongly suggests extraterrestrial impact a la Tunguska. Gildas, who was writing at approximately 540 AD, says

"In just punishment for the crimes that had gone before, a fire heaped up and nurtured by the hand of the impious easterners spread from sea to sea. It devastated town and country round about, and, once it was alight, it did not die down until it had burned almost the whole surface of the island and was licking the western ocean with its fierce red tongue ... All the major towns were laid low by the repeated battering of enemy rams; laid low, too, all the inhabitants - church leaders, priests and people alike ..."[2]

Notice that it certainly does not appear that Gildas intends allegory. The “enemy” that may have wielded those battering rams could very well have been natural forces. The narrative seems to suggest a cause and effect relationship. This connects back to the scientific evidence cited above that 540 was the really big blow. It may have been a year in which multiple comet fragment air-burst events took place. The migration of multiple thousands of people from Southern Britain to Brittany gives weight to the idea of a sudden, devastating trauma particularly affecting Britain.

In the month of June of the 3rd indiction Antioch the Great was captured by Chsroes, emperor of the Persians. Germanus was sent with his son Justin to carry on the war… Achieving nothing, he stayed in Antioch buying sliver [at a tremendous discount] from the Antiochenes. (John Malalas)

In 540, in Yemen, the Great Dam of Marib, dating from around the seventh century B.C., one of the engineering wonders of the ancient world and a central part of the south Arabian civilization, broke and began to collapse.

Prior to this event, Yemen was the most powerful political force among the Arabs controlling the trade from Eastern Africa. The city of Marib had formerly been the capital of the ancient kingdom of Saba (Sheba). The great dam was a marvel of engineering and said to have been one of the most amazing feats of human engineering of the pre-modern world. It fed hundreds of miles of irrigation canals, watering 24,000 acres. The collapse of the dam was a process that took place over time, but the final straw, after years of drought and famine, seems to have been a series of torrential rains, one of which produced such massive quantities of water that the dam gave way. The event was recorded in a royal inscription which said that a workforce had to be raised to repair it but a later inscription stated that the work had to be delayed because the availability of workers had been reduced by plague. This collapse of an irrigation system that fed tens of thousands of people forced migration[3] and led to the collapse of Yemeni power in the region. The people of Yemen were fully half the population of the Arabian peninsula and the loss of many of them, along with the power infrastructure left a serious power gap that, within two generations, had shifted to Medina which was a town dominated by Jewish Arabs. We will come back to this point further on.



[1] Greg Bryant (1999) The Dark Ages: Were They Darker Than We Imagined?: Universe, September 1999 issue.
[2] Gildas De Excidio Brittaniae, section 24.
[3] Two tribes – the Banu Ghassan and the Azd – which migrated north to the Medina oasis in Central Arabia. This event has been erroneously placed in the 3rd century AD or the 1st century AD, depending on which source one consults.
 
Well, has anyone grasped the probable meaning of the Gregory of Tours table?

I know little about Gregory of Tours and my general history is weak at best so I could be out of line here since my observance is very simplistic.

The only thing that stands out for me in those two tables is that in the "Eastern Empire" table you cite where the event takes place but in the "Gregory" table nothing has been mentioned with the exceptions of 580 and 591. "Snow buried everything" is kinda vague. Did he ever say where those events took place?
 
Well, has anyone grasped the probable meaning of the Gregory of Tours table?
I’ve been racking my brain! Looking at all the bolded stuff, I can’t help but see the rain and flooding. That seems to point to a cataclysm and tsunami from an impact (duh). We also have the conversion of St Martin and westernization of Christianity and its impact on Gallo-Roman religion (also duh). But I can’t riddle out where you’re so clearly hinting. I’ll just have to wait for you (or someone else) to point to what’s right in front of our faces! :headbash::curse::lol:
 
I think it would be helpful to separate out Self-Importance's speculations on Eastern histories into a sub-thread if that is possible.

What this thread is most concerned about is sorting out the time problem by examining the histories on which the timeline of Western history is constructed. It is the Western history that led to the domination of Christianity and its timeline and, like it or not, that is what has prevailed for a very long time.

It isn't very helpful to confuse the issues which are actually pretty basic.

(Pierre) I'm trying to reconcile the AD timeline of history and the BP timeline, ice cores and dendrochronology. There seems to be one matching marker at 536 AD - a year without summer, very cold, very bad weather - seemingly matching the 1500 BP mark with a converging cooling all over the planet revealed by ice cores and tree rings. So my question is: Is it a real match?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) In a previous session you mentioned about 470 years added between us and Julius Caesar. If it matches, it means these 470 years were added before 536 AD?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) It means Caesar died about 70 years before this 536 event?
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) Wow. It means there's no late or middle Roman Empire!
A: Yes
Q: (Pierre) Everything is collapsing. Yes, yes, yes. It's all gone. That's what we thought.

We have our official history that holds the timeline according to our history records. Probability that 470 years were inserted in official history in a way that only that part of it is a lie, and the rest is OK, is negligible, OSIT.
So, on what time span in official history were these years inserted, i.e. from which year or time period forwards in official history can we say that what we know is closer to truth and how far backwards in official version things were very likely a lie?

Your table has shown how 10 years could be inserted into 80 years interval (531-610), which suggests that 3760 years of official history is needed to have 470 years 'inserted' in it (47 decades in 470 years, 47*80 = 3760 years) in that manner. In other words, 3290 years of real human history would be needed to have a story that holds the water under modern methods scrutiny.

We have multiple official history versions which together also hold the water under the scrutiny, European - Arabic - Chinese, where last one seems most reliable in terms of how far backwards from today can we say it's more likely to be the truth.

Missing European and Arabic historical records of SN 1054 suggest that's where 'stitching' with Chinese official version happened, and I'm looking for other such points of connection between Arabic and European versions.
 
I’ve been racking my brain! Looking at all the bolded stuff, I can’t help but see the rain and flooding.

I now see it too. I made a tally of all the words mentioned. 'Rain' (6x), 'flood' (5x) and 'tsunami' (1x) are mentioned 12 times in the Gregory table but only 'flood' (4x) and 'tsunami' (3x) in the Eastern table. 'Rain' does not appear in the Eastern table. The Gregory table also does not mention 'fire', 'ash' or 'volcano' which are mentioned (3x), (3x) and (2x) in the Eastern table.
 
Last edited:
I now see it too. I made a tally of all the words mentioned. 'Rain' (6x), 'flood' (5x) and 'tsunami' (1x) are mentioned 12 times in the Gregory table but only 'flood' (4x) and 'tsunami' (3x) in the Eastern table. 'Rain' does not appear in the Eastern table. The Gregory table also does not mention 'fire', 'ash' or 'volcano' which are mentioned (3x), (3x) and (2x) in the Eastern table.

The Eastern table also lists 'earthquake' (35x), 'plague' (19x), 'comet' (16x), 'famine' (8x) and 'drought' (8x) over 146 years.

The Gregory table mentions 'earthquake' (4x), 'plague' (7x), 'comet' (8x), 'famine' (0x), and 'drought' (2x) over 14 years.

The Gregory table also lists 'snow' (1x) and 'frost' (1x).

The Gregory table is 'wet sided'. It's also disproportionately high in 'comets' (would be about 80x (!) in the same 146 year time frame (14x10=140 years)) and 'plague' (~70x). The Gregory table also does not mention any destruction of cities, wars or 'zodiacal signs'.
 
That article contains an interesting description of the state these 'Roman' coins were found in:
The majority were newly minted and some of them probably were bathed in silver, not just bronze,” said Navarro.

The video that you posted at one point discussed the silverness of coins, and those without. A thin silver plating on coins (he had one example) was rare to find, denoting being out of circulation (bulk stores), more or less. The impression left was that many had silver plating before being worn down or debased coins were minted:


Here is his one and only silver example in the collection:


1641776642562.png

Licinius I Constantine The Great enemy 313AD Ancient Roman Coin Jupiter i44222​

Licinius I – Roman Emperor 308-324 A.D. –
Silvered Bronze Follis 24mm (3.44 grams) Struck at the mint of Heraclea
January – February 313 A.D.
Reference: RIC 73 (VII, Heraclea)
IMPCVALLICINLICINIVSPFAVG – Laureate head right.
IOVICONSERVATORIAVGG Exe: Δ/SMHT – Jupiter standing left, holding Victory
and scepter; eagle to left.
 
The video that you posted at one point discussed the silverness of coins, and those without. A thin silver plating on coins (he had one example) was rare to find, denoting being out of circulation (bulk stores), more or less. The impression left was that many had silver plating before being worn down or debased coins were minted:


Here is his one and only silver example in the collection:


View attachment 53486

Licinius I Constantine The Great enemy 313AD Ancient Roman Coin Jupiter i44222​

Licinius I – Roman Emperor 308-324 A.D. –
Silvered Bronze Follis 24mm (3.44 grams) Struck at the mint of Heraclea
January – February 313 A.D.
Reference: RIC 73 (VII, Heraclea)
IMPCVALLICINLICINIVSPFAVG – Laureate head right.
IOVICONSERVATORIAVGG Exe: Δ/SMHT – Jupiter standing left, holding Victory
and scepter; eagle to left.
Great find. What strucks me is that his coins looks really new. I have four from his list, but mine looks heavily used.
 
Okay, the OBVIOUS thing about the Gregory of Tours table is this: someone took ten years of events away from an Eastern Empire record and used them to create the fake "History of the Franks." It's like looking for missing money in a bank account and you find it has been deposited elsewhere.

There is more about Gregory:

6th Century chronicler or 11th century revisionist?​

According to the official story, Gregory of Tours was a historian and bishop of Tours who lived during the 6th century AD. His writings are essential because he was the only chroniclers in the Western Roman Empire for the critical time which is the end of the 6th century. (Allegedly Gregory died in 594).[1]

It is not an exaggeration to say that all the other historians have based their narrative of the 6th Century history on this single source.

The problem is that numerous inconsistencies have been found in Gregory’s work. Actually several books are dealing solely with this topic. But “inconsistencies” per se don’t prove much. Some historian are very consistent, other historian are less consistent. That’s all. Nevertheless...

A coincidence is a coincidence; two coincidences are an indication, three coincidences are like a proof - Unknown

When those inconsistencies point repeatedly in the same direction, when repeatedly they mention places/expressions/titles that didn’t exist before the 11th Century while being mentioned by an alleged 6th century writer, one can start wondering about the real identity and time of this writing.

So, let’s check a few examples of those centuries-off inconsistencies

About Briotreis​

Briotreis, Bléré, chief town of canton, Tours district. Saint Brice, says Gregory of Tours, built a church “In vico Briotreide”. This is Adrien de Valois who first translated Briotreis by “Bridoré”, and all those who commented Gregory of Tours translated or copied without worrying to see if it was correct or not. In the thirteenth century, Bridoré, which never had the title of parish was called “Brolium doré”, from the name of the Doré family which owned it. One sees, from the form of the name, that this place can hardly be earlier than the end of the tenth century. (Source)[2]

About Lucca​

Lucca, Loches, on the old Roman road Сassarodunum to Limonum. Saint Eustoche, circa 450, established a church[3] there. The city was therefore of some importance at that time, and it had a famous castle mentioned in the annals of the eighth and ninth centuries. Gregory of Tours mentions it, but the terms he uses does not allow us to consider that it was built on Roman foundation as the use of the word “nunc[4]” seems to indicate. Indeed, the castrum was founded after the monastery. (Source[5])

The Patriarch of Lyon​

The title of Patriarch, attributed to Saint Nizier, bishop of Lyon, [by Gregory of Tours]
indicates a more recent writing [than 6th century], since the term “patriarch” was not yet used in the Western Church at the time of Gregory of Tours.[6]

Use of Modern Latin​

The language used[7] in this epilogue also betrays a much less ancient origin : [Gregory of Tours] offers emphatic definitions of the seven liberal arts, […] this division of science, as we know, started at best during the 8th or the 9th century. [8]

The case of the Pagus​

Touraine, as we have said, has always been a single Pagus, the Pagus Turonicus; the writings of Gregory of Tours, however, seem at first to contradict this assertion. The author gives the titlepagus” to a number of small countries included in the diocese of Tours, which by themselves have never important enough to deserve this qualification. Charters [that started to be established only around the 11th century. [9]] also provided an example of a similar designation persistent until the fourteenth century.

Arles bridge​

The historian Louis Mery said that the King Guntram is seized with a violent fit of anger when he learns that Sigebert's men kneel in the basilica of Arles and mint coins with the face of his brother on it[10]. He sends the patrician Celsus[11], at the head of an army. The latter, after having besieged and controlled Avignon to avoid being taken aback, then walk on Arles, blocks the city and begins to attack the army of King Sigebert which is entrenched in it.

[Sigebert's army] is lured outside the walls of the city and fights battle. We have few topographic details about this battle, but given the situation of Arles at the time, entrenched exclusively on the left bank of the Rhone, the marshes to the East and Burgundian troops coming from the north, from Avignon, the fight probably took place on the plain of Trebon, on the left bank of the Rhône to the north of the city, between Arles and Tarascon.

So the Austrasian go out of the city, but when defeated by the army of Celsus, they begin to run away and want to take refuge in the city, but they find its doors closed. The enemy's army pursuing them and shooting arrows at them, and the people of the city throwing stones at them, they head to the Rhone river, and try to reach the other side. Swept away by the violence of the river, many drown.

Strangely, Gregory of Tours does not mention the Roman bridge called Constantine’s bridge, located north of the city at the foot of the ramparts, through which defeated Austrasian troops could have take refuge on the right bank of the river.(source)[12]

[Although] we find in history, many references to this bridge. Between 380 and 390, when the poet Ausonius depicts the city of Arles

In the fifth century, in the life of Saint-Hilaire, the bridge is mentioned.

During the siege of Arles 507/508, this bridge is still mentioned. It is the object of fierce fighting between coalition forces and Frankish and Burgundian Ostrogothic army led by patrice Ibba.

In the eighth century, the bridge seems to still exist. Emile Fassin in his book “Arles Archaeological Bulletin”, reports that Arab author writing the story of the invasion of the Saracens in the south of France, says: The city, he says, is built on a river's largest country. The two sides communicate with each other by a bridge built so vast and ancient sound they practiced over markets. (source[13])

St Bézenet Bridge was actually built from a miracle, the little shepherd received mission of Jesus himself to go build a bridge over the Rhone (it is in 1177). [...] St Benezet was the only bridge between Pont St Esprit and mouth since the destruction of the bridge in Arles.[14]

So, although the bridge was still there there in the 8th century, In 1177 it had disappeared. So for someone writing after the 8th and before the 12th century indeed there was no bridge in Arles over the Rhone river.

Similarly to the story of Arles bridge, all of Gregory of Tours anachronisms listed above can easily be explained if he didn’t write during the 6th century but if “his” writing were made/doctored/redacted lateer including during the 11th or 12th century.

A. Lecoy de la Marche, archivist, paleograph and author of « De l' autorité de Gregoire de Tours » [Of Gregory’s of Tours authority] wrote at the end of his book :

One point only is beyond doubt, and clear from all the foregoing: either by
such alterations as the one shown through the examination of the text or by the kind of mutilations that Ruinart indicates, or by additions as the ones we have witnessed, “History of the Frank”s has been modified to an extent that does not allow us to see the work of Gregoire de Tours in its integrity.[15]



What is striking is that ALL the Eastern Empire alleged eye-witness accounts dry up completely right at 578 AD – the time that John Malalas is supposed to have died - and do not pick up again until 591 AD (which will become more interesting a date further on, as we will see). However, if John of Ephesus lived until 588, and was writing his own accounts of events of that time, and we suspect that those events included astronomical, atmospheric, and climatic records in which he was obviously furiously interested, if only for ecclesiastical purposes, what happened to them? It seems that the second part of his chronicle was devoted to exactly that sort of thing and that is the part that “has not survived.” Was it borrowed much later to create a skeleton for the fraudulent "History of the Franks"?


[1] Gregory of Tours - Wikipedia
[2] Notice Sur Les Divisions Territoriales Et La Topographie DeL'ancienne Province De Touraine .p.392
[3] 6. Grég. de Tours, Hist., 1. X, с. 31.
[4] Grégoire de Tours, Vita sancti Ursi,c.i.
[5] Notice Sur Les Divisions Territoriales Et La Topographie De L'ancienne Province De Touraine .p.402
[6] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 126
[7] Si Mal'lianus nostel' seplem disciplinis, etc.
[8] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 124
[9] Charte — Wikipédia
[10] Louis Méry - Histoire de Provence – page 306
[11] George Florient Grégoire, évêque de Tours (Traduction de J. Guadet et Taranne) - Histoire ecclésiastique des Francs, Volume 1 – Paris, Jules Renouard, 1836 - page 201
[12] Sièges d'Arles (566-570) — Wikipédia
[13] Pont de Constantin (Arles) — Wikipédia
[14] Foro gratis : créer un forum : LIENS UTILES
[15] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 127


When Gregory of Tours book ends, Western Europe descended into almost complete darkness for over 200 years. What happened after Gregory, in Western Europe, during that time of Darkness, we can only guess because the sources dried up. However, we do know what was happening in the Eastern Empire for some time to come, at least allegedly we do.
 
Last edited:
Okay, the OBVIOUS thing about the Gregory of Tours table is this: someone took ten years of events away from an Eastern Empire record and used them to create the fake "History of the Franks." It's like looking for missing money in a bank account and you find it has been deposited elsewhere.

There is more about Gregory:

6th Century chronicler or 11th century revisionist?​

According to the official story, Gregory of Tours was a historian and bishop of Tours who lived during the 6th century AD. His writings are essential because he was the only chroniclers in the Western Roman Empire for the critical time which is the end of the 6th century. (Allegedly Gregory died in 594).[1]

It is not an exaggeration to say that all the other historians have based their narrative of the 6th Century history on this single source.

The problem is that numerous inconsistencies have been found in Gregory’s work. Actually several books are dealing solely with this topic. But “inconsistencies” per se don’t prove much. Some historian are very consistent, other historian are less consistent. That’s all. Nevertheless...

A coincidence is a coincidence; two coincidences are an indication, three coincidences are like a proof - Unknown

When those inconsistencies point repeatedly in the same direction, when repeatedly they mention places/expressions/titles that didn’t exist before the 11th Century while being mentioned by an alleged 6th century writer, one can start wondering about the real identity and time of this writing.

So, let’s check a few examples of those centuries-off inconsistencies

About Briotreis​

Briotreis, Bléré, chief town of canton, Tours district. Saint Brice, says Gregory of Tours, built a church “In vico Briotreide”. This is Adrien de Valois who first translated Briotreis by “Bridoré”, and all those who commented Gregory of Tours translated or copied without worrying to see if it was correct or not. In the thirteenth century, Bridoré, which never had the title of parish was called “Brolium doré”, from the name of the Doré family which owned it. One sees, from the form of the name, that this place can hardly be earlier than the end of the tenth century. (Source)[2]

About Lucca​

Lucca, Loches, on the old Roman road Сassarodunum to Limonum. Saint Eustoche, circa 450, established a church[3] there. The city was therefore of some importance at that time, and it had a famous castle mentioned in the annals of the eighth and ninth centuries. Gregory of Tours mentions it, but the terms he uses does not allow us to consider that it was built on Roman foundation as the use of the word “nunc[4]” seems to indicate. Indeed, the castrum was founded after the monastery. (Source[5])

The Patriarch of Lyon​

The title of Patriarch, attributed to Saint Nizier, bishop of Lyon, [by Gregory of Tours]
indicates a more recent writing [than 6th century], since the term “patriarch” was not yet used in the Western Church at the time of Gregory of Tours.[6]

Use of Modern Latin​

The language used[7] in this epilogue also betrays a much less ancient origin : [Gregory of Tours] offers emphatic definitions of the seven liberal arts, […] this division of science, as we know, started at best during the 8th or the 9th century. [8]

The case of the Pagus​

Touraine, as we have said, has always been a single Pagus, the Pagus Turonicus; the writings of Gregory of Tours, however, seem at first to contradict this assertion. The author gives the titlepagus” to a number of small countries included in the diocese of Tours, which by themselves have never important enough to deserve this qualification. Charters [that started to be established only around the 11th century. [9]] also provided an example of a similar designation persistent until the fourteenth century.

Arles bridge​

The historian Louis Mery said that the King Guntram is seized with a violent fit of anger when he learns that Sigebert's men kneel in the basilica of Arles and mint coins with the face of his brother on it[10]. He sends the patrician Celsus[11], at the head of an army. The latter, after having besieged and controlled Avignon to avoid being taken aback, then walk on Arles, blocks the city and begins to attack the army of King Sigebert which is entrenched in it.

[Sigebert's army] is lured outside the walls of the city and fights battle. We have few topographic details about this battle, but given the situation of Arles at the time, entrenched exclusively on the left bank of the Rhone, the marshes to the East and Burgundian troops coming from the north, from Avignon, the fight probably took place on the plain of Trebon, on the left bank of the Rhône to the north of the city, between Arles and Tarascon.

So the Austrasian go out of the city, but when defeated by the army of Celsus, they begin to run away and want to take refuge in the city, but they find its doors closed. The enemy's army pursuing them and shooting arrows at them, and the people of the city throwing stones at them, they head to the Rhone river, and try to reach the other side. Swept away by the violence of the river, many drown.

Strangely, Gregory of Tours does not mention the Roman bridge called Constantine’s bridge, located north of the city at the foot of the ramparts, through which defeated Austrasian troops could have take refuge on the right bank of the river.(source)[12]

[Although] we find in history, many references to this bridge. Between 380 and 390, when the poet Ausonius depicts the city of Arles

In the fifth century, in the life of Saint-Hilaire, the bridge is mentioned.

During the siege of Arles 507/508, this bridge is still mentioned. It is the object of fierce fighting between coalition forces and Frankish and Burgundian Ostrogothic army led by patrice Ibba.

In the eighth century, the bridge seems to still exist. Emile Fassin in his book “Arles Archaeological Bulletin”, reports that Arab author writing the story of the invasion of the Saracens in the south of France, says: The city, he says, is built on a river's largest country. The two sides communicate with each other by a bridge built so vast and ancient sound they practiced over markets. (source[13])

St Bézenet Bridge was actually built from a miracle, the little shepherd received mission of Jesus himself to go build a bridge over the Rhone (it is in 1177). [...] St Benezet was the only bridge between Pont St Esprit and mouth since the destruction of the bridge in Arles.[14]

So, although the bridge was still there there in the 8th century, In 1177 it had disappeared. So for someone writing after the 8th and before the 12th century indeed there was no bridge in Arles over the Rhone river.

Similarly to the story of Arles bridge, all of Gregory of Tours anachronisms listed above can easily be explained if he didn’t write during the 6th century but if “his” writing were made/doctored/redacted lateer including during the 11th or 12th century.

A. Lecoy de la Marche, archivist, paleograph and author of « De l' autorité de Gregoire de Tours » [Of Gregory’s of Tours authority] wrote at the end of his book :

One point only is beyond doubt, and clear from all the foregoing: either by
such alterations as the one shown through the examination of the text or by the kind of mutilations that Ruinart indicates, or by additions as the ones we have witnessed, “History of the Frank”s has been modified to an extent that does not allow us to see the work of Gregoire de Tours in its integrity.[15]



What is striking is that ALL the Eastern Empire alleged eye-witness accounts dry up completely right at 578 AD – the time that John Malalas is supposed to have died - and do not pick up again until 591 AD (which will become more interesting a date further on, as we will see). However, if John of Ephesus lived until 588, and was writing his own accounts of events of that time, and we suspect that those events included astronomical, atmospheric, and climatic records in which he was obviously furiously interested, if only for ecclesiastical purposes, what happened to them? It seems that the second part of his chronicle was devoted to exactly that sort of thing and that is the part that “has not survived.” Was it borrowed much later to create a skeleton for the fraudulent "History of the Franks"?


[1] Gregory of Tours - Wikipedia
[2] Notice Sur Les Divisions Territoriales Et La Topographie DeL'ancienne Province De Touraine .p.392
[3] 6. Grég. de Tours, Hist., 1. X, с. 31.
[4] Grégoire de Tours, Vita sancti Ursi,c.i.
[5] Notice Sur Les Divisions Territoriales Et La Topographie De L'ancienne Province De Touraine .p.402
[6] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 126
[7] Si Mal'lianus nostel' seplem disciplinis, etc.
[8] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 124
[9] Charte — Wikipédia
[10] Louis Méry - Histoire de Provence – page 306
[11] George Florient Grégoire, évêque de Tours (Traduction de J. Guadet et Taranne) - Histoire ecclésiastique des Francs, Volume 1 – Paris, Jules Renouard, 1836 - page 201
[12] Sièges d'Arles (566-570) — Wikipédia
[13] Pont de Constantin (Arles) — Wikipédia
[14] Foro gratis : créer un forum : LIENS UTILES
[15] A Lecoy De La Marche – De l’autorité de Grégoire de Tours – page 127


When Gregory of Tours book ends, Western Europe descended into almost complete darkness for over 200 years. What happened after Gregory, in Western Europe, during that time of Darkness, we can only guess because the sources dried up. However, we do know what was happening in the Eastern Empire for some time to come, at least allegedly we do.

This is very interesting Laura, I was not aware of this evidence of anachronisms in Gregory of Tours. It is clear that he wrote this fraud under the orders of the Carolingians.

The more I think about this problem, the more obvious it seems to me that the events of the High Middle Ages were inserted before the fall of the Roman Empire. It is as if real people (the Roman emperors/commanders) were taken and made to replay the scene.
The suggested link between Charlemagne and Constantine seems promising. Several authors have hypothesized that the state religion promulgated under Constantine was linked to the cult of Mithras, which would be contemporaneous with a persecution under Diocletian of early Christians.

I think that the "rois fainéants" ("do-nothing kings") at the time of the Merovingians (it's simple, if you remove the text of GOT, these kings simply disappear from history) are a "smoke screen". They mask what really happened at the time in Europe. I think that Pepin the Short and Charlemagne are fictional characters based on Pepin of Herstal and Charles Martel. We should analyze this period and compare it with the "Christian period" of the Roman Empire.

This weekend I was doing an analysis of the various Christian saints in the West. There seem to be 2 main waves: a persecution under Diocletian and his colleagues and another between the 5th and 6th centuries. For the "saints" of this second wave, I have the impression that they were "pagans" persecuted by "Christians" or Carolingian executors. I have the feeling that the fraud consisted, among other things, in erasing this period of violence and the exactions committed in the name of Christianity or theocratic imperialism, and in reversing the culprits/victims.

We know that the Carolingians made a kind of coup d'état by dethroning the Merovingians. It was a dark period with a lot of violence. The nickname Charles Martel meant "hit hard" like a hammer ("marteau" in french). Charlemagne is known as the Christian emperor who fought fiercely against the "pagans". If the Vikings primarily attacked monasteries, it may have been more as a result of a mirror action than as a simple plundering expedient.
 
The nickname Charles Martel meant "hit hard" like a hammer ("marteau" in french). Charlemagne is known as the Christian emperor who fought fiercely against the "pagans". If the Vikings primarily attacked monasteries, it may have been more as a result of a mirror action than as a simple plundering expedient.
And the Vikings were Christians ca. 710 AD (or earlier). From this perspective we can hypothesize that the struggles between the Vikings and the Franks were, maybe, about two different kinds of Christianity.
 
And the Vikings were Christians ca. 710 AD (or earlier). From this perspective we can hypothesize that the struggles between the Vikings and the Franks were, maybe, about two different kinds of Christianity.

Yes, indeed it is a possibility. But were the Vikings really Christianized? Are we sure that medieval Europe was deeply Christian in the modern sense?
It makes me think of the conflict between Arianism and Nicene Christianity, that complex theological rivalry that makes no sense in the context of the chaos in which it is supposed to have taken place. We could rather hear "Aryan"?

Fulcanelli in "Dwellings of the Philosophers" (first chapter) suggests that the dating of cathedral buildings is an anomaly. So I asked myself if they were much older than one might think. It is enough to observe the Romanesque abbeys, churches and abbeys in France and elsewhere in Europe to realize that they are much more "pagan" than Christian. I am referring here to the symbols inscribed in the stone and not to the various artifacts introduced later. I did the exercise this summer and they are indeed filled with Celtic symbols without any trace of Jesus imagery and they are all dedicated to Our Lady. Have we ever wondered why the name of Jesus is almost totally absent in the names of our old so-called Christian buildings?

We risk drifting away from our main topic, this could be the subject of a separate post. But I think there is a fascinating avenue to explore.

In any case, one has the impression that the Carolingians imported Byzantine Christianity into Europe and that they wanted to impose it by force. They probably did everything possible to suppress the cult of Caesar, which was very present in France.
 
But were the Vikings really Christianized? Are we sure that medieval Europe was deeply Christian in the modern sense?
Not in modern twisted sense but in a more traditional way: St Paul's message / Mithraism / Jules Casear. But Frankish views through forgeries, propaganda and wars prevailed.

Apparently, along with the Vikings, the Irish people, the Picts, and the Cathars/Bogomiles were also sparred by the multiple cataclysms and had opportunities to retain a closer definition what we call Paleochristanity.
 
Not in modern twisted sense but in a more traditional way: St Paul's message / Mithraism / Jules Casear. But Frankish views through forgeries, propaganda and wars prevailed.

Apparently, along with the Vikings, the Irish people, the Picts, and the Cathars/Bogomiles were also sparred by the multiple cataclysms and had opportunities to retain a closer definition what we call Paleochristanity.
Having just finished Father Hardouin's Prolegomena and now reading Edwin Johnson's Rise of Christendom, I get the impression that this may be why the Cathars were so ruthlessly persecuted. Although I have not followed up all the arguments yet, both seem to say that it's probable a lot of the writings ascribed to the Church fathers were written in the twelfth to fourteenth centuries in monasteries in order to give the Church an authority and antiquity or tradition that did not exist. A lot of this seems to cumulate around Innocent III. who initiated the crusade against the Cathars. Maybe Catharism stood in the way of the narrative these monastic orders were trying to push?
 
Maybe Catharism stood in the way of the narrative these monastic orders were trying to push?

I think so, they were close to understanding the original reality according to the C's :

Were the Bogomils and the Cathars - as I have surmised - close to understanding this original reality?

A: They had some very close approximations, but they were still influenced by many of the distorted religious ideas of the time.

Including celebrating Caesar:

Q: (Pierre) Oh... Next question: The Cathars, just before surrendering in Montsegur, they negotiated this truce for a few days to realize a secret celebration. We don't know what it was about. It was around the 14th of March. Was it related to a celebration of Caesar's death?

A: Yes. The Last Supper is a commemoration of Caesar.

No wonder they were deemed heretical and were exterminated.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom