The Fabrication of Roman Antiquity

Hindsight Man

Jedi Master

I found this article that proposes than the idea of Western Roman empire is largely a fabrication and that Rome as we think of it had more than just it's roots in Greece.This article is a first in a series yet to be published,but those with an interest in history and those who haven't yet read Fomenko's work will likely find something to chew on.
 

I found this article that proposes than the idea of Western Roman empire is largely a fabrication and that Rome as we think of it had more than just it's roots in Greece.This article is a first in a series yet to be published,but those with an interest in history and those who haven't yet read Fomenko's work will likely find something to chew on.
I haven’t finished reading this yet but so far a fascinating read. Thank you for this! As Laura has pointed out much of history as we know it is completely wrong so the works of diligent scholars uncovering the truth are much appreciated.
 
Well, I'm not too sure that this is the work of "diligent scholars". I read it and wasn't much impressed. Like so many who do not take into account planetary cataclysms and "readjustments" of history, they appear to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
 
Well, I'm not too sure that this is the work of "diligent scholars". I read it and wasn't much impressed. Like so many who do not take into account planetary cataclysms and "readjustments" of history, they appear to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I agree to a point,for example saying Caesar isn't real is demonstrably false.But you've been buried in this material for at least ten years,most people going into it have no clue of cataclysms or the extent to which history has been hidden and re-written.They also don't have C's to help guide them.I guess I'm just happy to see more people questioning the uniformitarian version of history.
 

I found this article that proposes than the idea of Western Roman empire is largely a fabrication and that Rome as we think of it had more than just it's roots in Greece.This article is a first in a series yet to be published,but those with an interest in history and those who haven't yet read Fomenko's work will likely find something to chew on.
The second article just came out : How Fake is Church History?
 
Well, I'm not too sure that this is the work of "diligent scholars". I read it and wasn't much impressed. Like so many who do not take into account planetary cataclysms and "readjustments" of history, they appear to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Just finished reading this author’s four posts. (They came out later than this thread)

After reading your reply, I was expecting I’d see another case of keen observation finished off by jumping into the abyss of cool-sounding conclusions. But I was surprised by quite steady language, lots of research and being quite truthful to the point of view of the quoted authors.

I’m curious to know how you see him throwing out the baby with the bathwater?
I’m also curious to know how you inferred he’s not familiar with history readjustments?🙏
 

I found this article that proposes than the idea of Western Roman empire is largely a fabrication and that Rome as we think of it had more than just it's roots in Greece.This article is a first in a series yet to be published,but those with an interest in history and those who haven't yet read Fomenko's work will likely find something to chew on.
I’m very glad I found this forum. This is my third read I found in Cassiopaea that blows me away, truly paradigm shifting.

Also, I was surprised to see how most of the posts in the website you linked have such a different tone. This Unz guy seems to brag that he’s written over 700.000 words, to be invested in ‘conservative’ ideology. There was one specific post I read over there that was particularly muddled, with a word salad of vague words. Uhmm🤔

Thanks for this🙏
 
I started digging more into the original sources of Roman history and found this:

Basic Wiki page on Roman Historiography:

Roman historiography - Wikipedia

As you can see, there isn't a whole lot that's accepted as a "Roman Source" after the Flavian period.

What the Wiki page leaves out is possibly more telling, no Procopius and no early Christian writers. And yes, I personally do think Procopius is genuine and many important nuggets are buried in the Patristic writings.

Overall, it's a real mess. But from what I can glean so far - the C's are right in their calculation of the added years. I have a sinking feeling that Rome (the city) didn't survive much past the Flavians.

I'll start with the barest of ten assumptions using the C's info, ice core/tree rings, "accepted" Roman sources and FPTM as a basis of piecing together a more coherent timeline.


1. Caesar is a real historical figure and the cult of Divus Iulius quickly sprang up after his assassination.

2. Justinian is also a real historical figure and the last Emperor. His final base for ruling is not Rome.

3. Following Caesar's death there are approximately 70 years until the 536 and 540 AD volcanic pulses show up in the Greenland ice cores and tree ring samples.

These catastrophic volcanic incidents (probably triggered by comets and accompanied by other natural cataclysms) lead to the Plague of Justinian that finally destroys what is left of the "empire" in Nova Roma (I believe this is the actual name at the time of Justinian's capital known as Constantinople). The Dark Ages follow and are maybe even more dark than suspected for at least 200 years.

4. In the interceding years between Caesar and Justinian, Paul's mission happens. Probably closer to Caesar's death than to Justinian's reign. At the same time the "First Christianity" (as Tertullian refers to it) ie: The Cult of Judas the Galilean or the "James Gang" Zealots also exist and are violent revolutionaries working primarily in Palestine/Judaea, but with "offices" throughout the empire.

5. At a very acute crisis point in the empire, Mark re-writes a passion play about Caesar combining Paul's mission and ideas with aspects of the Judas/James religion into a Gospel with the hopes of either "saving" the Jews, saving the Empire - or both. Possibly this is some sort of last grasp at a unification of aim. Paul is warning of a short time before the end, Mark should be a generation or more later, when the final crisis must already be in motion. If Mark's Gospel is originally in Latin, then it is unlikely to be located in Justinian's time and possibly decades earlier.

6. From Caesar right through to Procopius there is a cascading negative effect on the empire due to escalating moral degeneracy that is referred to by many sources and culminating in the Secret History by Procopius. Paul's conversion may have to do with this accelerating process shortly after Caesar's death. His mission might be much closer to Augustus than the accepted timeline proposes.

7. The first Vesuvian eruption happens while Rome is still standing and at least somewhat robust and intact. Most likely during Nero's reign. The key question is the time span between the eruption that buries Pompeii and final destruction under Justinian. Are there multiple Vesuvian eruptions or is Vesuvius just the first recorded and triggers multiple disasters that go off in succession from other locations?

8. Rome was obliterated and uninhabited before Justinian's reign in Nova Roma. Whomever this Constantine character is that flees to/conquers that city in the east, it is before Justinian, but possibly not by much time at all. Justinian may have gone on a final building spree, but if he had founded the new imperial home, I think Procopius would have made that clear.

9. There are dozens of "fake" emperors from Augustus to Justinian. Many of them rule in parallel conflict with each other. Many are minor "Caesars" ruling different parts of the empire as it starts to collapse and create their own coins and art declaring themselves "emperor". As the gates of hell open up and the cascading negative effect accelerates, this sets off the psychopaths to take on each other vying for supremacy.

10. The current timeline we've been stuck with starts to be re-created/interpolated/mistranslated in the 9th and 10th century under the Carolingian's obsessed with justifying a new and Holy Roman Empire replete with a rich Christian timeline to justify not only their rule, but their theology.

If there's anything here that looks out of place or too assumptive - please comment. I'm using this basic set of assumptions as flexibly as possible to match up many recurring events in the empire that are strung out over 600 years, but likely must have happened in less than 100.
 
Back
Top Bottom