Domain Of Man

General Category => Competing Chronologies => Topic started by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 03, 2010, 07:36:06 PM

Title: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 03, 2010, 07:36:06 PM
Hey Charles, this site must have been created for me?  Thanks.

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Chuck-Star on February 03, 2010, 10:25:37 PM
Yes, Ron, this board's for you!  Glad you found it before posting Fomenko material on all the other topics!

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 07, 2010, 08:51:29 PM
Charles, whilst I made the remarks, I really did not want it to come out that you has specifically reserved a space for me!  Sorry if it sounded so!  

And, I think, you have also made some changes in chronology yourself or at least you would not be specifically against some revision of the currently accepted chronology of the past!   You, it seems have the genius to make connections that would be missed by most every scholar alive or dead that specialized in history and chronology (the two are of course entwined within each other).  Thus your "Royal Characters" in what can only be stated as a Royal Play, taking place upon a live world and causing real world wide events, etc.!, are therby identified by you in each successive generation of uncles, cousins, brothers and sisters, etc.!  Each select and successive ruling class is it appears, destined to follow a plotline based upon characters and character defects, etc., that had followed some ancient plan!  In other words, it seems that each ruling class, had a set of character types that were for the most part repeated no matter where the power base was seated, or maybe you intended to imply that there was always some central power base, which ground out these characters for use in other places within a Greater Empire!

Please correct me if I have not correctly paraphrased your views?

Better yet, can you condense your view(s) in a few paragraphs so I can better use it?  It would make it easier for me to infuse your connections within anything that I might expose here and make it (revisionist thought) more understandable to your followers!

And, it is quite possible that I might be the only one reading it anyway?  Laugh!

I am not competing with you, I would rather like to see it as a "one way" co-operative act.

If that is OK, with you then please respond?



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 17, 2010, 01:38:43 AM
It would be helpful to me to see some kind of side by side style graph. At least the major events / players and their respective time lines suggested. I realize this can be if too complicated if all the connected families are squeezed on the same page. I've read from varied writers (as in the case of Moses ) dates of his lifetime anywhere from 1700 BCE to 600 BCE. Even as its already been done, adding the dates from the Bible of Abraham to Moses come up to 420 years, or is it 480 years? I believe there are esoteric and mathmatical (Cabalist) reasons for certain dates. In the case of Akhenaten 2400 BCE to around 1200 BCE is another example of a spread in time by historians. Charles brings him closer to our time than other models I've seen.

I'm not suggesting some battle of who's right or wrong, just another tool that we can use to communicate ideas to those who never dreamed there was another idea, other than the one they've heard about. Ah, but alas...maybe thats my job? If only I could type, spell, or do charts!

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 07:24:13 PM
Dear TS,

If you are not familar with Fomenko, then I suggest you read the Wikipedia article concerning him and his (their) theory!   As you can well tell by reading the Wiki article, they are against this idea and consider it as "trash!"

The Wiki watchmen speak constantly about "verifible" information, but this information has to come from "verifiable" sources!  It is a circular argument which preculdes using the Fomenko Group's (hereafter refered to as the "FG") self checking system from even being mentioned or shown.  Thus, myself and one poggio, have almost singlehandledy fought for them to include certain ideas (such as the FG's set-back theory) so anyone can make their own decision.  So, with that in mind, I will refer you to read the Wikipeida "discussion page) where poggio and myself have made attempts to open the main article up and show the possibility of "verification!"

If you need a short example of the set-backs used by the Fomenko Group, hereafter refered to as the FG, you can find these posts of mine at the Wikipedia site concerning Fomenko.

{Dear Dr. Weller,

I would respectfully suggest that no article in Wikipedia should delibertly ignore the time set-backs proposed by Dr. Fomenko, etal! Wikipedia's own suggestions state;

{I must interject that the age of Jesus the Nazerine (not of Nazereth) is very conjectural as is his actual existance. However, regarding Biblical data, if it can be called such, it is not beyond the point of reason to assume that the life of a radical thinker, like Jesus, might not actually have begun until his Baptism / Bar-Mitsva, etc. This act might well have not occured until his actual age was 12 -14 years. Thus the "religious life" of this person might well have lasted for 33 years or so, making his age at death 42-44. Of course this entails one to believe he was actually killed, much rumor suggests that he might well have survived his punishment and went into excile, etc. It is also conjectured that after he became a man, age 12-14 he might well have travelled for a number of years,or become a hermit or monk, etc., only becoming a person of interest to the authorities many years later maybe 10 years or maybe 20, who knows? Thus his actual death could well have been around the age of 54 to 64 since birth maybe longer. As the quotation goes, "It is a mystery wrapped in an enigma!"

Moreover, Fomenko, et al, does not directly identify Jesus / Iesus / Joshua as any real personality but more as a correlation of some personalities from our consensualy agreed upon past. In fact where the Fomenko Group does make an outright statement of identity they use the name Andronicus! A word taken from "Andro" or "Ander", etc. meaning "Man!", I suppose. Actually Fomenko and company place either the birth of Jesus or his death in the 12th century CE., and he is likely a composit person rather than real, much like the Fomenko group considers Muhammed, etc. As a matter of fact, also defacto historical creations are Alexander the Great, just a personification of a great Ottoman ruler, and other personalities that have been artifically cast back in time as well as space on numerous occasions.

You must understand that the Fomenko group has exposed what might be either artifical or deliberate set-backs of time that can be used to connect what are now considered as "ancient" events, with mostly real and more recent events, such as history as recorded from the time of mass printing where fraudulent ideas could not so easily be manufactured since too many copies of these events might have been published. Thus, according to my view of the Fomenko works, everything that is written concerning events that we consenually consider as happening before the 12th -15th century or so CE, is fabrication, either accidental or deliberate. These discovered "setbacks" come in a number of "flavors". In numerical value they are approximately 330-362 years, 720 years, 1053 years, 1,386 years which is a multiple of 333 years plus 1053 years, etc., and 1773 - 1840 years, which is the equivalent of 1053 plus the 720 year setback. Thus so called ancient personages like Plato become a more modern personage called Pletho, etc. You can perform your own tests of this hypothosis by finding some meaningful personage from ancient Rome or some important battle or other events from this period and via the addition of the above setbacks to the ancient date discover meaningful characters much closer to our times than you might imagine. Thus Muhammet the prophet and Muhammed II the Ottoman!

The period of time we now consider as Greece after the conquest of the city of Constantinople by the so called "Crusaders" can be compared to the "ancient Greece" of Meander, Plato, Solon, the Spartans, etc. The problem with such a comparison for us is that (some) the very sources that the Fomenko group depends upon are very rare today and not usually found in English at all. A prime example would be the works of a great historian named Ferdinand Gregorovius, who wrote the "History of the city of Rome during the Middle Ages", as well as the "History of Athens during the Middle Ages", the notation of these sources can be found at source number 195 and 196 in the biblliography of "History; Fiction or Science?, Chronology I. But it appears that access to both of these important sources are not easily accessed. The Athens work is it appears only available in German and possibly Russian, but no English translation has to the best of my knowledge ever been made or published! So, if one of you wanted to refute a lot of the material that Fomenko has used to support the relationship of "ancient" Greece to the "Frankish States" that were found in the same area after the crusader conquest of the Byzantine Empire, and even after the Ottoman conquest of the same years later, you would have first to obtain a copy of said book(s) and then translate them into English, etc. Fortunately Fomenko and company have made their own translation of selected passages of these books. Thus to find any verification of Fomenko's claims you would first have to show your translation is better than his own. You will please note that information concerning "ancient Greece" is prolific in mass whilst information about the times between 1200 CE and 1500 CE in the Greek world are sparce! This very Wikipedia site will prove it to any of you. (talk)Ron hughes69.92.23.64 (talk)}

And this post;

{Please folks, let's not use this page to discuss Fomenko, the chronology, etc. And the article isn't a place to 'prove' anything at all. The article should simply report what reliable and verifiable sources have to say about the subject, and this page should only be used to discuss what should be in the article based on those sources, and things such as layout, etc. Definitely not a forum to argue the pros and cons of the hypothesis. dougweller (talk) 08:33, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

"Article policies

No original research
Neutral point of view
Since the "set backs" are "part and parcel" of the entire Fomenko proposal why should they not be included within the main article. This does not indicate that this is "original research", on the contrary it is part of the theory of the Fomenko Group and part of its "raison d'etre!" With these suggested numerical aids, the Fomenko theory can be tested independently by anyone reading Wikipedia.

I feel this meets the "NPOV" rules! "Verifiability" is either there, or it is not!

Thus a reasonable part of the Fomenko proposal would exist in the period of the past now known as a part of the Classical Greek period, or a little later, let us say from 550 BCE up until 300 BCE or so, and as such encompases about 250 years of history. Fomenko suggests that within this time-line one can pick out certain events and personages that seem to "reappear" as different personages and at differing places (sometimes) if one were to add 1778, or 1800 or 1810 years to the BCE dates.

The Fomenko proposal simply states, that by moving 550 BCE to 1228 CE or 1250 CE or even 1260 CE, and so on down the line to to align 300 BCE with 1475 CE or 1500 CE or 1510 CE, and then one can compare major Greek leaders, philosophers, and events with those events of the BCE comparable times with the CE times, one might well find some correlations.

One example (proposed by the Fomenko Group) is "The Mediaeval Gemisto Plethon / Pletho (c.1355-1452) as the 'Ancient' Plato." Plato, 428-347 BCE, is transferred to approximately 1382 CE -and approximately 1463 CE, the assumed time of Plethon. "A 1810-year shift of dates forward, makes the years of Plato's life instead cover the period between 1382 and 1463 A. D.- the very epoch that Plethon was active in, that is." Source is "History: Fiction or Science, chronology II, pages 270-271. It must be stated that current history appears to know very little about the life and times of Plethon.

In a similar example, the Fomenko Group compares Sparta during the Peloponnesian War, with the Despotate of Mystras after a 1810 year shift.

Regards, (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I think you misunderstand verifiablity, look at WP:Verify - we aren't verifying the idea but checking the source. This is basically an insignificant (eg not taken seriously by academics) fringe view and should only be in articles about Fomenko and his (and associates) ideas. See WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies / Fomenko
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 10:56:06 PM
Readers of this portion of Charles' site should also read this; (Which is taken directly from Wikipedia!)

"Misuse of historical sources and forced pattern matching
Critics of Fomenko's theory claim that his use of historical sources is highly selective and ignores the basic principles of sound historical scholarship.

Fomenko ... provides no fair-minded review of the historical literature about a topic with which he deals, quotes only those sources that serve his purposes, uses evidence in ways that seem strange to professionally-trained historians and asserts the wildest speculation as if it has the same status as the information common to the conventional historical literature.[43]

They also note that his method of statistically correlating of texts is very rough, because it does not take into account the many possible sources of variation in length outside of "importance". They maintain that differences in language, style, and scope, as well as the frequently differing views and focuses of historians, which are manifested in a different notion of "important events," make quantifying historical writings a dubious proposition at best. What's more, Fomenko's critics allege that the parallelisms he reports are often derived by alleged forcing by Fomenko of the data – rearranging, merging, and removing monarchs as needed to fit the pattern.

For example, on the one hand Fomenko asserts that the vast majority of ancient sources are either irreparably distorted duplicate accounts of the same events or later forgeries. In his elision of Jesus and Pope Gregory VII (Book 2, Chapter 2, pg 51) he ignores the otherwise vast dissimilarities between their reported lives and focuses on the similarity of their appointment to religious office by baptism. (The evangelical Jesus is traditionally believed to have lived for 33 years, and he was an adult at the time of his encounter with John the Baptist. In contrast, Pope Gregory VII lived for at least 60 years and was born 8 years after the death of John Crescentius, according to the available primary sources.[44])

Critics allege that many of the supposed correlations of regnal durations are the product of the selective parsing and blending of the dates, events, and individuals mentioned in the original text.[45] Another point raised by critics is that Fomenko does not explain his altering the data (changing the order of rulers, dropping rulers, combining rulers, treating interregna as rulers, switching between theologians and emperors, etc.) preventing a duplication of the effort and therefore hinting that his results may have a pathological science aspect to them akin to N-rays over a century ago and effectively making this whole theory an Ad hoc hypothesis.[29]"

The above words are directly writtenbh as critisism of the FG's results!  Hohwever while they may well be correct about "selective parsing snd selective dates", they are incorrect as to the reasons such selections are made!  Therefor, they avoid the allegations of "misrepresenting" or "selective manuplication" of supposedly "ancient" documents by others! 



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:12:48 PM
A good example of an event, that might well support the FG,   or as history would now tell us "events" might well be this / these?:

1. Have you ever considered the obvious relationship between the Frankish / French invasions of Egypt and the invasions of the Sea Peoples or Peoples of the Isles?  Have you ever considered that almost every city (commune) in Europe or Scandinavia during the Middle Ages and up to the 19th century, were "isles?", or "L'iles", or some other version of this word? 
If you take the time and make a good search, you will find out that almost every community of any measure, was at one time, surrounded by water!  Either man- made moats, or natural moats, or full of canals or creeks, some natural, and some man-made!
This effectively made them islands because you literally had to pass over water to enter them! 
Please consider the term "Fleur de Lys", or "fleur d'lis", or other variations?  Especially the commune / city called "Lille?"

Almost everything concerning these two (2) invasions co-incides!  IE, the number of troops involved, the same places ie. a sea or river battle at Damietta, an incursion of the invaders into Egypt to? (you might well be able to supply the name of this town or area?), the supply trains (a Germanic term "laager"?), and ultimate distruction / rout by the Egyptians, etc.!
Please take the time to read the following sites?

Please  note that Imanuel Velikovsky compared Rameses III with Nectanebo II, etc., at least where, Greeks (or were they really Byzantines?) were involved!  Just how many invasions of Egypt really occured?  I might well have asked just how many times Jerusalem, or Rome, or Constantinople, or even Rome were invaded and looted?  Can you tell me the answers?  Tell you what, I'll give you two hours to come up with all of the answers!
2. Next read this;

Or, maybe I should just send you this?

On other sites found within the Inter-Net, I have made posts concerning the apparent use of "chevrons" in a military setting in times now considered as ancient. 
Specifically I was referring to the "chevrons" that can be seen upon the tunics or armour in a representation of what are today called "the people of the sea", or "Sea Peoples", or "People of the Isles",that had been inscribed upon the walls of a great temple at Medinet Habu in Egypt.

Reproductions of these murals / reliefs cut into stone can be found at various sites on the Net, as well as in numerous books and magazines.  Some of the representations found are better than others, but the best one clearly shows the sailors or warriors of the "Sea People" clearly depict large "chevrons" emblazoned upon what can only be described as "tunics" or "breast-plates" and showing various versions, ranging from two chevrons to five or six chevrons.

Below are two of the best sites I have been able to find during an Internet search on the subject "chevrons";

"Chevron" is an architectural term denoting the rafters of a roof meeting an angle at the upper apex. The chevron in heraldry was employed as a badge of honor to mark the main supporters of the head of the clan or "top of the house" and it came to be used in various forms as an emblem of rank for knights and men-at-arms in feudal days. One legend is that the chevron was awarded to a knight to show he had taken part in capturing a castle, town, or other building, of which the chevron resembled the roofs. It is believed from this resulted its use as an insignia of grade by the military.

The lozenge or diamond used to indicate first sergeant is a mark of distinction and was used in heraldry to indicate achievement." (Further research might even reveal that the word "lozenge" is incorrect in this instance?)

Interestingly it seems information from the past concerning the use of this symbol seems to have come to us from a "legend!"  What that legend was is unknown to me but it would be interesting to know about it.

In any case, from the above we see that it is considered that its useage is only traced to "feudal" times.  So just what days (times) were considered as "feudal?"

Now the second site;


Chevron is a French word meaning rafter or roof, which is what a chevron looks like; two straight lines meeting at an angle just as rafters do in a roof. It has been an honourable ordinarie in heraldry since at least the Twelfth Century. Ordinaries are simple straight line forms that seem to have originated in the wood or iron bars used to fasten together or strengthen portions of shields. Other ordinaries include the cross, the diagonal cross or "x," the triangle, the "y," and horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines. The chevron was a basic part of the colorful and complicated science of heraldry. It appeared on the shields and coats-of-arms of knights, barons and kings.

Chevrons were thus easily recognized symbols of honor. That might by why French soldiers started wearing cloth chevrons with the points up on their coat sleeves in 1777 as length of service and good conduct badges. Some British units also used them to show length of service."

We see above a mention that the use of these symbols "has been an honourable ordinarie in heraldry since at least the Twelfth Century."  The author(s) then seem to have knowledge of the use of at least some of these symbols such as "ordinaries include the cross, the diagonal cross or "x," the triangle, the "y," and horizontal, vertical and diagonal lines." during the times we now date as 1101 CE to 1200 CE!  This period also seems to cover the "crusader" period as well and, at least back to the times of William the Conqueror, or about 1040 CE to 1100 CE. 

At;  we can see an example of the coat of arms of a famous French Cardinal, thus; .  As you can see, the coat has three chevrons or "three chrvronels guiles" emblazoned!  Might not it make sense that an attack or crusade supported by such a powerful person might well wear the mark of the one who "graced" the project?

Certainly we have all seen representations of the Crusader Knights emblazoned with various types of "crosses" upon their "tunics" or "armour!", but I do not know of any representations shown with the "chevron" being apparent!   But, it is obvious that I have not seen even a small percentage of the representations of knights (Che-Va-lier's) emblazoned or decorated with such designs, certainly some or many representations of chevaliers with such designs depicted upon them exist? 
And, as we have seen, since the "chevron" is said to represent a "rafter" of a home or church, then "Heraldry offers a fascinating study of medieval lifestyles where we can surmise much regarding our forefathers. Historically, different creatures of nature denoted certain characteristics, and various inanimate shapes implied certain traits, historical factors or aspirations. For example, the chevron symbolized protection and has often been placed on Arms to tell others that its bearer achieved some notable feat."

We have already seen that the above sites mention "feudal times" as the period of the past whereby the use of these symbols is first apparent to us or to representations of the knights / chevaliers of those times, etc.  Maybe we could even consider that (before vowel substitution was codified to a large degree), the use of vowels in a language like Hebrew, was basically left in the hands of the reader or writer! 
It is even possible that at one time and at one or more place the word might have been spelled as "chav-ron"; the "cha" part might well be a key?  With that in mind look at words like Cha-sid, chas-se, chas-sedpot, chas-seur, chas-sis, chas-te, chas-ten, chast-ise, chast-ity, chas-uble and even cha-teau?  The list of such words could even be continued including words beginning with "chat" and "chau", such as Chau-cer or chaus-sure / chas-seur?  Or it could be begun with words like; chant, or Chan-ukah, or chap, or chape, or chapel, or chaperon, or char, or character, or charge, or charger, or chariot, or charter,  etc.! 
Please note that any or all of the above suggestions could be applied to the life or expectancy of a "Knight!" 
Even in a game of "Chess" the knight is the only one allowed to jump over other pieces and even change direction while doing so! 
Please feel free to spend a few minutes looking in your favorite dictionary for the above words as well as others as might well be appropriate, if you care?  By the way, you are allowed to "jump over" a few words if you like!


End of part one!


Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:15:37 PM
Part two!


Feudal times technically refers to the "Middle Ages", so let us see what others have to say about this period of the past?

From this site;

We find;

"Feudalism. The social structure of the Middle Ages was organized round the system of Feudalism. Feudalism in practice meant that the country was not governed by the king but by individual lords, or barons, who administered their own estates, dispensed their own justice, minted their own money, levied taxes and tolls, and demanded military service from vassals. Usually the lords could field greater armies than the king. In theory the king was the chief feudal lord, but in reality the individual lords were supreme in their own territory. Many kings were little more than figurehead rulers.

Feudal Ties. Feudalism was built upon a relationship of obligation and mutual service between vassals and lords. A vassal held his land, or fief, as a grant from a lord" (the Lord gives and the Lord takes away!).  "When a vassal died, his heir was required to publicly renew his oath of faithfulness (fealty) to his lord (suzerain). This public oath was called 'homage'.

A Vassal's Obligations. The vassal was required to attend the lord at his court, help administer justice, and contribute money if needed. He must answer a summons to battle, bringing an agreed upon number of fighting men. As well, he must feed and house the lord and his company when they travelled across his land.

This last obligation could be an onerous one. William the Conqueror travelled with a very large household, and if they extended their stay it could nearly bankrupt the lord hosting them. In a few days of Christmas feasting one year William and his retinue consumed 6,000 chickens, 1,000 rabbits, 90 boars, 50 peacocks, 200 geese, 10,000 eels, thousands of eggs and loaves of bread, and hundreds of casks of wine and cider.

A Lord's Obligations. On the lord's side, he was obliged to protect the vassal, give military aid, and guard his children. If a daughter inherited, the lord arranged her marriage. If there were no heirs the lord disposed of the fief as he chose." 
Please note the use of the word "heirs?"

So we see that "feudal times" can be considered to have existed at least during the times of William (the Bastard) the Conqueror!  It seems that "feudalism" and the "middle ages" are mostly synonymous?  So, just what period of time is considered to be called "the Middle Ages?"

From the above we see that most historians consider the "Middle Ages" to have existed for about one thousand years, or from the middle of the 5th century (ca. 450) CE until the 16th century CE (ca. 1480 -1520 CE) ! 

Can we consider that the use of "chevrons" as an "emblem" of a "knight" or "chevalier" and as a sign of rank, might have existed during the last times of the Roman Empire (ca. 400-460 CE) or even earlier?

While I would like each of you to actually read the entire Wiki site (above), here are some words I feel need be included in this posting;

"Until the Renaissance (and for some time after that), the standard scheme of history was to divide history into six ages, inspired by the biblical six days of creation, or four monarchies based on Daniel 2:40. The early Renaissance historians, in their glorification of all things classical, declared two periods in history, that of Ancient times and that of the period referred to as the 'Dark Age'.

Filippo Villani first mentioned a "middle period" (much like the Middle Sea) "between Antiquity and his present when he observed in a treatise of 1382 that the islands in the Mediterranean Sea were called by different names in priscis mediis modernisque temporibus ("primitive, middle, and modern times"). (Possibly we could spell it as the Medd-le Sea?  One needs to remember that spelling was not specified as correct or incorrect into well into the late 18th century CE?))

In the early 15th century, it was believed history had evolved from the Dark Age to a new period with its revival of things classical, so some scholars, such as Flavio Biondo, began to write about a middle period between the Ancient and Modern, which became known as the Middle Age. It was not until the late 17th century when German scholar Christoph Cellarius' published Universal History Divided into an Ancient, Medieval, and New Period that the tripartite periodization scheme began to be used more systemically.[2]

The plural form of the term, Middle Ages, is used in English, Dutch, Russian, Bulgarian, and Icelandic while other European languages use the singular form (Italian medioevo, French le moyen âge, German das Mittelalter, Spanish edad media, Romanian ev mediu, Russian Средние века)." (Note the Italian version which is, "Medioevo!")  "This difference originates in different Neo-Latin terms used for the Middle Ages before media aetas became the standard term. Some were singular (media aetas, media antiquitas, medium saeculum, and media tempestas),[3] others plural (media saecula and media tempora). There seems to be no simple reason why a particular language ended up with the singular or the plural form.[4] The term 'medieval' (sometimes spelled "mediaeval") was first contracted from the Latin medium ævum, or more precisely "middle epoch", by Enlightenment thinkers as a pejorative descriptor of the Middle Ages.

The common subdivision into Early, High, and Late Middle Ages came into use after World War I. It was caused by the works of Henri Pirenne (in particular the article "Les periodes de l'historie du capitalism" in Academie Royale de Belgique. Bulletin de la Classe des Lettres, 1914) and Johan Huizinga (The Autumn of the Middle Ages, 1919).

Dorothy Sayers, a noted scholar in medieval literature as well as a famous writer of detective books, strongly objected to the term. In the foreword to her translation of The Song of Roland, she writes "That new-washed world of clear sun and glittering colour, which we call the Middle Age (as though it were middle-aged), has perhaps a better right than the blown summer of the Renaissance to be called the Age of Re-Birth."

Are we all clear about the situation now?

4. Here is a representation of the Mediteranean Area before the final fall of the Western Roman Empire;

Please take the time to note the postition of all of the sub-divisions that our consensual history places here in circa 450 CE!  Please note that Egypt is a part of the Eastern (Byzantine) Roman (Rumanian?) Empire!  Also please note the position of "Iberia!", and then look at the better known? "Iberian Pennisula?"  Then examine the lands of the "Franks" and the "Friesians!"  And as a last point note the location of the Vandals and the Visigoths!

Since Egypt was reportedly the "breadbasket" of Rome, did the Eastern Empire consider it necessary to continue the supply of grain to the Western Empire at all times?  Did it transport grain to Italy (Rome) after the fall of the West?  Did Egypt still supply grain to Constantinople after this time or did Egypt ever supply grain to Constantinople?  Or did the grain (procurred by Constantinople) come from some place much closer?  (Note, some where in my research into the past, I have even found evidence that Switzerland [at one time, maybe the 17th / 18th century or so?] imported grain from Russia or the Ukraine!  Sorry I do not have the site available!  But, just how did Switzerland get the grain into its land bound nation?)

Can we even consider that Egypt, at least as we see it today, was ever a "breadbasket" to any part of the world?  In modern times, it cannot feed even its own people, can we really consider that it (Egypt) fed an Empire in earlier times?  In fact, we might well consider that the most important appetite of the Empire that Egypyt was able to supply was, "papyrus!"  It seems it was grown and harvested so throughly, that it even became extinct in Egypt.  This may well have happened when the demand for it dried up with the invention of cheap(er) paper!

In fact, in latter times, the only part of the Med. / European area, that was considered a "breadbasket," was,  and still is, located in what we today refer to as either parts of "Poland", "Hungary",  "Rumania", "Russia", or "Ukraine!", and in the past, the outlines of all of these realms was quite different from time to time!

Since our consensual history is based upon a combination of accounts (some of dubious value) and conclusions made by historians, (based upon these dubious accounts) also vary in considerable degrees, we then come to an example whereby the view of the past, placed upon a map, might show just how "considerable" those conslusions might become.  See;

Note the dates accorded to this kingdom and compare to the view of the earlier map concerning 450 CE?  Quite a difference of opinion isn't it?  I am sure that each of you, with a little bit of research, might well uncover other examples, which might disagree to a greater or lessor degree!



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:17:13 PM
Part three;

5. At this site, you can read about a great general of the Byzantine Empire;

You will notice that he is given credit for a partial re-conquest of parts of the Iberian Pennisula (H-E(I)spania) from the Visigoths.  He reportedly operated under the great Justinian. 

At the above site there is a representation of a painting found in Ravenna, Italy.  It is suggested that the central figure is, Justinian and the man upon his right side is Belisarius.  Please note the insignia seen upon this figure's (Belisarius') right shoulder?  Could this be a version of the so called "star of David?" 
Also note the young attendants to the right of said Belisarius?, they might well be termed either "pages" or "squires" or "esquires", or probably most correctly "Shield Bearers" or "Armour Bearers", since they carry both shields and spears.  Please note their hair cuts! 

They certainly have what we today would calle "Page Boy" cuts!  Note; some historians have been forced to consider that Belisarius might well have been considered as a "Eunuch", as well as his successor / replacement, IE, Narses!  One might well consider that the Jews, who were considered amongst the first to demand "circumcisum" of its males, may have led others to a mis-intrepretation of the word "Eunuch", or "castrated one?"  Or it may be that in the early days the Hebrew priests were castrated and eventually a "ritual" castration was substituted and called "circumcisum?"

One might well also note that the "Crescent", as a symbol of an Empire, is regarded as also being correct for the Byzantine (Latin? / Rum / Roum?) Empire as well as that of other empires such as the Ottoman (Attaman? / Othman?) Empire! 
"Though earlier associated with the Sassanid Persians, and later with Mithradates VI Eupator (who for a time incorporated the city into his empire)[1], by the late Hellenistic or early Roman period, the star and crescent motif had been associated to some degree with Byzantium. For example, some Byzantine coins of the 1st century BCE and later show the head of Artemis with bow and quiver, and feature a crescent with what appears to be a six-rayed star on the reverse." 
And it is in the last sentence above that the "Star of David" again comes into our view!
"The earliest known Jewish text to directly mention the symbol is Eshkol Ha-Kofer by the Karaite Judah Hadassi, in the mid-12th century CE:.."
So the only real information concerning the use of this symbol by anyone Jewish / Hebrew?, is found circa 1150 CE!, or the the Middle Age(s). 
Note next the divisions of the MIddle Ages;  "..or Dark Ages"..."It spans five or six centuries from AD 400 or 500 to 1000."  The above site ends this period with the date of 1054 CE!  I believe there supposedly occurred during this same time a great explosion seen around the world, and, it seems, especially in Asia, a great Super Nova! 
6. Based upon the above information, we have to assume that the Early Middle Ages was followed by what could be clumsily referred to as the "Middle Middle Ages", but which has been offically now referred to as the "High Middle Ages!" 
"The High Middle Ages was the period of European history in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries (AD 1000–1300). The High Middle Ages were preceded by the Early Middle Ages and followed by the Late Middle Ages, which by convention end around 1500."
So, from the above information we can place the "advent" of the "Star of David" to the early period of the "High Middle Ages!", I.E. the middle of the 11th century CE! 
Would it not follow that the symbol found upon the shoulder of Belisarius (from above) might well be more correctly dated to the same period of time?
And please take note of this site;

Please make note of the name of the Byzantine city called "Carthago Spartaria!" 
Just why would such a city with this name exist at this time, and especially in Spain?  Just what could the name indicate?

Maybe a study of the Frankish / Flemish kingdoms / dutchies in Greece and the surrounding area after the taking of Constantinople by the Frankish / Flemish / "Free? / Frisian?", crusaders might be in order? 
Pay particular attention to the group known to us now as "The Catalan Company!", and later "The Navarrese Company!"  You might well want to refresh you memories of these groups, if your memories actually have ever considered them at all?



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:19:14 PM
Part four!

7. But, you might well be asking right now, just what does all of the above have to do with "Chevrons?"

Well it is all connected in a manner that is not obvious to most, but that is not their fault.  It is perhaps my weakness that I tend to wander around in the past making connections that seem most obvious to me, but wildly out of time and place to others and I shall waste no more time going in all directions at once.  (It seems that since I am so familar with so many different subjects and periods, my  mind does make certain connections that are not obvious to most historians who are mostly "centered" upon one group or time!  Perhaps I am more of a "generalist?"  But, sometimes, unless I take the time to record my connection(s) they soon disappear like the trail of a shooting star!  But, no matter how diffuse they may become, they are still real connections, and I apologize for my inability to recall them at a moments notice!

So, the Chevrons found in the mortuary temple of Ramesses III, depicting the great Sea Battle either on a river or near a port city, etc., might well be a clue?  And one good example of a reproduction of it;

Please look at example number 4!  There you will obviously see the chevrons upon the vestments / blouses? / tunics / armor? of these warriors / sailors / marines!  Note that they wear both a "tunic" and what can only be called a "skirt" or "kilt!", or maybe it was a one piece outfit? 
Note that "kilts" are considered as the attire of a typical Roman soldier, as well at the example of a typical Scot!  Please remember the family crest of Cardinal Richelieu!

You will notice that the above site is reportedly written by persons involved in military actions!  So, why is it that they, who should best know about the use of chrvrons, not even mention their occurence in the panels? 

Simply, it is the 12th to 13th century BCE date which is assigned to Ramesses III (easily, L'amesses?, a possibility mentioned by Velikovsky),  that stops them! 
These men obviously knew that the use of chevrons to denote rank, etc., was not in common useage until over 2,000 years later, at best (I.e., the  12th cent. CE)! 
It was certainly not knowledge that stopped their words, it was greater than that it was "momemtum!", IE, the momemtum of the consensuallly approved history, it is like the physics question of unlimited mass, etc..

8. Next, see;

At the above site you will also be introduced to the word "Vogelbark", or "Duck headed boats / ships", which to me at least, reminds me of the vessels that still ply the lagoons of Venice to this day.  Here are some important words from the above site;


The archaeological evidence certainly points to a Central European presence in
Late Helladic Greece, but to what degree, and what was its nature? Previous arguments,
most recently by Schachermeyr89 and Bouzek90 have argued for an invasion of
Mycenaean Greece by Central European populations, resulting in the palatial
destructions that occurred in the LH IIIB/C period. Other scholars, most notably
Sandars91 and Drews,92 have seen in the archaeological record evidence for a Central
European mercenary population present in Mycenaean Greece during the period that the
first Sea Peoples raids were being launched in the 14th century B.C.E.
Archaeological evidence for the presence of a Central European population in
Late Helladic Greece is found most frequently in the form of weapons and ceramics.


The most significant Central European import into the Aegean during the Bronze
Age was the flange-hilted, ‘cut-and-thrust’ sword (generally referred to as the

89 Schachermeyr 1980.
90 Bouzek 1985, 202-5.
91 Sandars 1978.
92 Drews 1993.

Sprockhoff IIa or simply the IIa sword).93 It first appears, in a burial along with
Mycenaean pottery and a Central European socketed spearhead, on the island of Cos in
the Late Helladic IIIB:2 period.94 The cut-and-thrust sword was not simply a new
addition to the array of weapons that the Mycenaean Greeks already had at their
disposal—spears, daggers, dirks, and narrow rapiers—it introduced a new and more
deadly form of warfare. Its long reach and slashing blow proved more effective than an
opponent’s stabbing rapier. By the 11th century the IIa sword was “virtually the only
sword in use in the Aegean,” and it became the standard sword of the early Iron Age
cultures of the Near East.95 Thirty-eight IIa swords have been found in Late Helladic
contexts.96 Figure 23 shows their distribution.

93Snodgrass 1967, 29; 1974, 211; Sandars 1983; Drews 1993, 192-208.
94Sandars 1983, 53; Muhly 1984.
95 Drews 1993, 194.
96 Drews 1993, 203

Fig. 23. Distribution of IIa swords in the Late Helladic Aegean. After Bouzek 1985,
121, fig. 57.

Interestingly, although versions of the cut-and-thrust sword first appear in
Central Europe in the mid-fifteenth century (Bz C1),97 they are not found in the Aegean
until suddenly in the midst of the crisis of the LH IIIB/C period.

In addition, the European style spearhead appears in the Aegean in this period.
Cast rather than forged, its continuous form proved superior to the Greek version and

97 See Drews 1993, 194-5 for discussion and bibliography.

was, like the IIa sword, quickly adopted.98

Since Mycenaean metalsmiths were forgers, not casters, there is reason to believe
that the importers of the IIa swords brought their craftsmen with them, either from the
northern Italian reaches of the Urnfield periphery,99 or from the Balkans.100 There is
evidence that Mycenaean craftsmen attempted to forge, rather than cast, the IIa sword in
the period around 1200 B.C.E. The results tended to be “most unwieldy and eccentric,”
and the enterprise was quickly given up.101

The round shields carried by the Sea People in the Medinet Habu naval battle
relief, and earlier 13th century Battle of Kadesh (fig. 24),102 appeared in the Aegean only
around 1200 B.C.E. Evidence points to its introduction from Central Europe.103 Unlike
the larger shields favored by Mycenaean warriors employing longer-range weapons such
as javelins and spears (seen carried by the crew of the Kynos A ship, fig. 17a), the round
shield provided the mobility and agility necessary for the close-quarters combat required
by the IIa sword.

98 Harding 1984, 162-73; Bouzek 1985, 119-42. It appears that in the case of European fibulae and pins, like weapons, their design was so effective that they were quickly adopted throughout the Aegean.

Therefore, actual “European” imports of such objects are very rare. See Kilian 1985.

99 Harding 1984, 165.
100 Sandars 1978, 91-92. Sandars, the preeminent specialist on Late Bronze Age European weapons, does
not see an Italian influence on the first-generation IIa swords in the Aegean.
101 Sandars 1983, 39.
102 See Sandars 1983, 44-5 for discussion.
103 Harding 1984, 177; Schachermeyr 1980, 154-7."

If you actually go to the site (Fig. 23. Distribution of IIa swords in the Late Helladic Aegean. After Bouzek 1985, 121, fig. 57.), and if I am not looking correctly at it, then it seems that the great majority of such weapons would have occured in the area of the world which we today call Denmark, ie., the home of the Danes (Dannae?), or as one might well have described them, before the time of William the Conqueror (the Bastard), or the Vikings, more correctly they should merely be refered to as the "Northmen!"

At other sites I have shown to you from above, there was a mention by the Pharoah's of the period, of a "band of warriors"  or some type of professional organization or warriors,  which the Egyptians called "The Nine Bows!", and as almost always, these Egyptians called them as, peoples from "the Isles!"  Just why would these Egyptians have reason to consider these foreign invaders as being from "Isles?", unless  they were considered as from the "isles" of the Nile delta during the flood period especially? 
Thus any group, or a conglomeration of peoples united in a "common cause", who might travel to Egypt from any of the various "Isles" that occur in the Mediteranean area might well be "Peoples of the Isles?"  Thus any invading fleet / army (armies?) that was / were transported from Cyprus, or Crete, or Sicily, or Malta, or Rhodes, etc., to Egypt, might well self describe themselves as "from the Isles?"  Certainly people from Britain or the British Isles, and those people who lived behind walled and moated cities around the world, or those surrounde by rivers like Copenhaven, etc., might also consider themselves as living upon Islands, etc.  This is certainly true of Paris, where the ancient part of this great city was entirely "upon the Isle de France", etc.!  And where in later times the entirety of France was referred to as an "Isle!"  I.e., the "Isle de France!", that was seperated from the rest of Europe by both language and traditions! 

Numerous scholars have attempted to classify the named groups of the Egyptian invaders from similarities of their names with islands found in the Mediteranean area, mostly with limited success.  Immanuel Velikovsky attempted to correlate this invasion of Egypt with the Persians, ie. the "Peleset!" or "Pereset?", rather than the Philistines (Filestines?), and thus move up in time, closer to our age, to the times of the Persian (PRS) invasion(s) of Egypt especially during the times of the Egyptian king we now call Nectanebo II! 
You might well wonder why I used the word "Filistines" as a substitute for "Philistines?"  Obviously the "ph" can be vocalized just as well by the English"f", and thus "Filistines!", but there does exist an ulterior motive, that is, the Biblical description of the wonders and power or the Phiistines! 
The Bible is quite explicit when it was written that "only the Philistines had iron (possibly steel?) and the ability to sharpen hoes, ploughs, swords, etc.!!  Just what instrument is used to "sharpen plows or knives, or any other instrument that had to have an edge to work well!  I would suggest that your immediate thought was "a file!"  Of course one might also make the case that the word is but a version of "fils", or maybe even "Phil", etc.  And;

9. Whilst I do not totally agree with Velikovsky's determination, he did a wonderful job in his arguments and explanations.  And, his view of PRST, or PLST(t), or ?, as Persian was wonderful.  And, by the way, you can read about Nectanebo II at;

Or you might well want to read Velikovsky's "Peoples of the Sea"?, "Rameses II, and His Time", and "Ages in Chaos", for a better understanding as to why he would remove about 800 years from the history of Egypt!  His connection of Ramesses the II and III (As well as Merneptah) with Greece or the Greek world, was truely marvelous. 

Velikovsky was not one to give a lot of credit to others, or he might well have credited Sir Isaac Newton, and a few others for giving him the desire to correct what many people consider a discredited chronology, ie, the chronology of Egypt!  (for example, the similarities of the 11th, 12th and 18th dynasties, etc.) 

But Velikovsky did open up the "playing field" so to speak!  And he was maligned viciously by the ruling class of chronologers and historians, just as was Newton!  Newton also reduced the chronologies of Egypt and as a result Greece by large amounts (1000 years or more!).  RIP  By the way, have your read Newton's "Chronology?", or some of Velikovsky's books?

So, one might ask, just what do I have to offer as an explanation for those so called ancient attacks upon Egypt, that have enthralled historians for years?
What I suggest is that you should throw away all ideas you have ever entertained about the past and clear your mind, at least for a while!

The major question you must try to answer is just why modern historians and experts in military history do not grant the use of the chevron to much history before the 12th or 13th century CE? 



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:21:52 PM
Part five!

Well, as I have mentioned earlier, I do not remember seeing the chevron used as a military symbol or sign, etc., on paintings, or other representations of any military units whether crusader or ancient Roman or Greek until I just watched the new movie entitled "The 300!"  In that movie I did see a shield which seemed to carry a chevron!  So I cannot preclude that other evidence of its useage in the past preceeded the 12th century CE! (ie. the 1100's.)  Why is it that representations of military units wearing or bearing "chevrons" seem to not be much shown in representations of these military groups?

Perhaps the following information found at Wikipedia will state my postition?

While the following is a copy and paste taken from the above site, I would wish that each of you might read and examine the entire Wiki site for important information, especially the maps, etc.

"Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
Main article: Fifth Crusade
By processions, prayers, and preaching, the Church attempted to set another crusade afoot, and the Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) formulated a plan for the recovery of the Holy Land. In the first phase, a crusading force from Austria and Hungary joined the forces of the king of Jerusalem and the prince of Antioch to take back Jerusalem. In the second phase, crusader forces achieved a remarkable feat in the capture of Damietta in Egypt in 1219, but under the urgent insistence of the papal legate, Pelagius, they then launched a foolhardy attack on Cairo in July of 1221. The crusaders were turned back after their dwindling supplies led to a forced retreat. A night-time attack by the ruler of Egypt, the powerful Sultan Al-Kamil, resulted in a great number of crusader losses and eventually in the surrender of the army. Al-Kamil agreed to an eight-year peace agreement with Europe.
Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
Main article: Sixth Crusade
Emperor Frederick II had repeatedly vowed a crusade but failed to live up to his words, for which he was excommunicated by Pope Gregory IX in 1228. He nonetheless set sail from Brindisi, landed in Palestine, and through diplomacy he achieved unexpected success: Jerusalem, Nazareth, and Bethlehem were delivered to the crusaders for a period of ten years.

Louis IX attacks Damietta

In 1229 after failing to conquer Egypt, Frederick II of the Holy Roman Empire, made a peace treaty with Al-Kamil, the ruler of Egypt. This treaty allowed Christians to rule over most of Jerusalem, while the Muslims were given control of the Dome of the Rock and the Al-Aksa mosque. The peace brought about by this treaty lasted for about ten years.[26] Many of the Muslims though were not happy with Al-Kamil for giving up control of Jerusalem and in 1244, following a siege, the Muslims regained control of the city.[27]
Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
Main article: Seventh Crusade
The papal interests represented by the Templars brought on a conflict with Egypt in 1243, and in the following year a Khwarezmian force summoned by the latter stormed Jerusalem. The crusaders were drawn into battle at La Forbie in Gaza. The crusader army and its Bedouin mercenaries were completely defeated within forty-eight hours by Baibars' force of Khwarezmian tribesmen. This battle is considered by many historians to have been the death knell to the Kingdom of Outremer. Although this provoked no widespread outrage in Europe as the fall of Jerusalem in 1187 had done, Louis IX of France organized a crusade against Egypt from 1248 to 1254, leaving from the newly constructed port of Aigues-Mortes in southern France. It was a failure, and Louis spent much of the crusade living at the court of the crusader kingdom in Acre. In the midst of this crusade was the first Shepherds' Crusade in 1251.
Eighth Crusade 1270
Main article: Eighth Crusade
The eighth Crusade was organized by Louis IX in 1270, again sailing from Aigues-Mortes, initially to come to the aid of the remnants of the crusader states in Syria. However, the crusade was diverted to Tunis, where Louis spent only two months before dying. For his efforts, Louis was later canonised. The Eighth Crusade is sometimes counted as the Seventh, if the Fifth and Sixth Crusades are counted as a single crusade. The Ninth Crusade is sometimes also counted as part of the Eighth."

Especially note this map;

Size of this preview: 800 × 578 pixels

Pay particular attention to the area of France which includes Flanders, Paris and a connection all the way to the Mediteranean Sea which is coloured in pink or red!  What ever our historians might call this area today matters not, but since part of Holland / Flanders is a part of it, as is the area in and around Paris, we might consider than any crusader groups from this area would precisly be called Franks, and (as well since every settlement of any importance was also surrounded by water) thus as well, they could all be considered as "People of the Isles / Iles, etc."

And why is this significant, one might ask? 

This is significant since almost every city within this area was walled and if at all possible they were also surrounded by water filled moats!  Thus, almost every city was an "island" or "isle" or "l'ille", etc.  The oldest part of Paris is called "the L'ille de Paris!", IE, "The Isle / Island of Paris!"  Even France proper is sometimes refered to as the "Ile de France!", even though we are told that it really merely represents but "26 administrative districts surrounding Paris".  In a sense, they consider themselves "set apart!"

And while I do not know who coloured the above map, if they were representing the area around the Meditereanean Sea, as representing areas of control by certain groups, the the area under the control of Valadmir (the grand duke) seems to encompass even Egypt, unless it is just the absence of coulour that makes it seem so!

More later!


Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 17, 2010, 11:54:11 PM
Last post of phase one!

11. It is most significant (in the above map)
that the area closest to England is also the area of the Lys / Lis River (within the boundaries of Flanders) as well as certain very famous cities.  One of these is Lille!  I would suggest that you pay particular attention to all of the below sites?

The Fleur de Lys, or why did the rulers of France use this as their symbol?;  and

ARRAS  "Chief town of Atrebates; damaged by Attila 451 & by Northmen 800; ruled by Flanders; medieval center for tapestry manufacture; ceded to Maximilian of Austria 1493; held by Spanish Hapsburgs 1640; taken by Louis XIII of France 1640."
Now consider Lille?;

Origin of the city

The legend of "Lydéric and Phinaert" puts the foundation of the city of "L'Isle" at 640. Although the first mention of the town appears in archives from the year 1066, some archeological digs seem to show the area as inhabited by as early as 2000 BC, most notably in the modern-day quartiers of Fives, Wazemmes, and Old Lille.

The name Lille comes from insula or l'Isla, since the area was at one time marshy. This name was used for the castle of the Counts of Flanders, built on dry land in the middle of the marsh. The Count of Flanders controlled a number of old Roman cities (Boulogne, Arras, Cambrai) as well as some founded by the Carolingians (Valenciennes, Saint-Omer, Ghent, Bruges). The County of Flanders thus extended to the left bank of the Scheldt, one of the richest and most properous regions of Europe.

The original inhabitants of this region were the Gauls, such as the Menapians, the Morins, the Atrebates, and the Nervians, who were followed by Germanic peoples, the Saxons and the Frisians, and the Franks later. From 830 until around 910, the Vikings invaded Flanders. After the destruction caused by Norman and Magyar invasion, the eastern part of the region fell under the eyes of the area's princes.

Lille is the 3rd largest French river port after Paris and Strasbourg. The river Deûle is connected to regional waterways with over 680 km of navigable waters. The Deûle connects to Northern Europe via the River Scarpe and the River Scheldt (towards Belgium and the Netherlands), and internationally via the Lys River (to Dunkerque and Calais).

House of Flanders
Baldwin I Iron Arm (r. 860s-879), married Judith and was granted lands and honours, which would evolve into the County of Flanders.
Baldwin II the Bald (r. 879-918), son of Baldwin I and Judith
Arnulf I the Great (r. 918-964), son of Baldwin II, joinly with:
Baldwin III (r. 958-962), son of Arnulf I
Arnulf II (r. 964-988), son of Baldwin III
Baldwin IV the Bearded (r. 988-1037), son of Arnulf II
Baldwin V of Lille (r. 1037-1067), son of Baldwin IV
Baldwin VI (r. 1067-1070), son of Baldwin V, Counts of Hainaut
Arnulf III (r. 1070-1071), son of Baldwin VI, Counts of Hainaut
Robert I the Frisian (r. 1071-1093), son of Baldwin V
Robert II (r. 1093-1111), son of Robert I
Baldwin VII Hapkin (r. 1111-1119), son of Robert II
House of Knýtling
Charles I the Good (r. 1119-1127), cousin of Baldwin VII, designated by him
House of Normandy
William I Clito (r. 1127-1128), great-grandson of Baldwin V, designated by Louis VI of France
House of Alsace or House of Metz
Derrick I (r. 1128-1168), grandson of Robert I, recognised by Louis VI of France
Philip I (r. 1168-1191), son of Derrick I
Margaret I (r. 1191-1194), daughter of Philip I,
jointly with her husband Baldwin of Hainaut
House of Flanders
Baldwin VIII (r. 1191-1195), husband of Margaret, also Count of Hainaut
Baldwin IX (r. 1195-1205), son of Baldwin VIII, also Latin Emperor of Constantinople
Jeanne I (r. 1205-1244), daughter of Baldwin IX, married 1212 to Ferdinand of Portugal (d. 1233) and then (1237) to Thomas II of Savoy
Margaret II (r. 1244-1278), sister of Jeanne, married first to Bouchard IV of Avesnes and then William of Dampierre
In 1244, the Counties of Flanders and Hainaut were claimed by Margaret's sons, the half-brothers John I of Avesnes and William III of Dampierre in the War of the Succession of Flanders and Hainault. In 1246, King Louis IX of France awards Flanders to William.
House of Dampierre
William I (r. 1247-1251), son of Margaret II and William II of Dampierre
Guy I (r. 1252-1305), son of Margaret II and William II of Dampierre, imprisoned 1253-1256 by John I of Avesnes
Robert III of Bethune ("the Lion of Flanders") (r. 1305-1322), son of Guy
Louis I of Nevers (r. 1322-1346), son of Robert III
Louis II of Male (r. 1346-1384), son of Louis I
Margaret III of Male (r. 1384-1405), daughter of Louis II,
jointly with her husband Philip II, Duke of Burgundy
House of Burgundy
John the Fearless (r. 1405-1419), son of Margaret III and Philip II of Burgundy
Philip II the Good (r. 1419-1467), son of John
Charles II the Bold (r. 1467-1477), son of Philip the Good
Mary the Rich (r. 1477-1482), daughter of Charles the Bold, jointly with her husband Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor
House of Habsburg
Philip the Handsome (r. 1482-1506), son of Mary and Maximilian
Charles III (r. 1519-1556), son of Philip, also Holy Roman Emperor (as Charles V)
Charles V proclaimed the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 eternally uniting Flanders with the other lordships of the Low Countries in a personal union. When the Habsburg empire was divided among the heirs of Charles V, the Low Countries, including Flanders, went to Philip II of Spain, of the Spanish branch of the House of Habsburg.
Philip III (r. 1556-1598), son of Charles III, also King of Spain
Isabella Clara Eugenia (r. 1598-1621), daughter of Philip II,
jointly with her husband Albert, Archduke of Austria)
Philip IV (r. 1621-1665), grandson of Philip III, also King of Spain
Charles IV (r. 1665-1700), son of Philip IV, also King of Spain
Between 1706 and 1714 Flanders was invaded by the English and the Dutch during the War of the Spanish Succession. The fief was claimed by the House of Habsburg and the House of Bourbon. In 1713, the Treaty of Utrecht settled the succession and the County of Flanders went to the Austrian branch of the House of Habsburg.
Charles V (r. 1714-1740), great grandson of Philip III, also Holy Roman Emperor (elect)
Mary Theresa (r. 1740-1780), daughter of Charles IV, married Francis I, Holy Roman Emperor
Joseph I (r. 1780-1790), son of Maria Theresa and Francis I, also Holy Roman Emperor
Leopold (r. 1790-1792), son of Maria Theresa and Francis I, also Holy Roman Emperor
Francis II (r. 1792-1835), son of Leopold II, also Holy Roman Emperor
The title was factually abolished in the aftermath of the French revolution and the annexation of Flanders by France in 1795. Although, the title remained officially claimed by the descendants of Leopold II until the reign of Karl I, Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.",_Countess_of_Flanders

"She" (Jeanne) "was the eldest daughter of Baldwin IX of Flanders, who was also (as Baldwin VI) count of Hainaut as well as Emperor of Constantinople. Her mother was Marie of Champagne.


In 1202 Baldwin left on the Fourth Crusade, and Marie left to join him two years later, leaving Jeanne and her baby sister in the care of their uncle Philip of Namur.

Jeanne's mother died in August 1204, and her father died the next year, leaving her a five-year-old orphan under the guardianship of Philip of Namur. He continued as regent as well, ruling in her name rather than her father's. Philip soon put his nieces in a difficult position. He became betrothed to a daughter of King Philip Augustus of France, and gave the king custody of the two girls. Philip Augustus in turn agreed to sell their custody to Enguerrand de Coucy, who probably planned to marry Jeanne when she came of age. But these plans fell through, and in the end she married Ferdinand, prince of Portugal in Paris in January 1212. He was the nephew of Jeanne's great-aunt-by-marriage Matilda of Portugal.

While on their way to Flanders the newlyweds were captured by Jeanne's first cousin Louis (the future Louis VIII of France), eldest son of Philip Augustus and his first wife, Jeanne's aunt Elizabeth of Flanders, otherwise known as Isabelle of Hainaut. Louis' aim was to acquire his dead mother's dowry, a large piece of Flemish territory including Artois, which Jeanne's father had taken back by force after Isabel/Elizabeth's death.

Released after this concession, Jeanne and Ferdinand soon joined the old allies of her father, king John of England and Emperor Otto IV, in an alliance against France. They were decisively defeated at Bouvines in July 1214, where Ferdinand was taken prisoner.

This could go one for a long time so I will end it at this point.

You see, I just feel that France, those "Cocks", or "cocs", and "fleurs", have been artifically set back into the distant past, perhaps by the very same "experts" which accompanied Napoleon into Egypt?  But, that is the height of vanity!  

Never the less, it was done by some one or via some method!

I rather doubt that I shall expect any other replies from you or your aids, but I do thank you for this opportunity to express my (others) feelings!


Ronald L. Hughes

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Truth Seeker on February 18, 2010, 10:52:32 PM
I must admit that I am somewhat overwhelmed and flattered by such an extensive response to a couple of questions and comments! It appears to me that you have a book of your own and so kudos to you for such detailed research. Yes, I have read your work and indeed skipped a few words and links which will be investigated more, as I progress further in this and other related subjects.

I wasn't aware of this theory (fomemko) and surely see your frustration with the established histories as they are taught today. So I thank you for your dillengence in the subject. Though the "bath water" may be quite dirty, I'm not sure I'm ready to throw the baby out quite yet. I can see (as you've pointed out quite nicely) how various elitists have altered and interjected their own ideas in disguise of the classic (stories) writers. Herodotus was accused of the same thing by later Greeks as well as moderen scholars. In just a few hundred years after Pythagoras, some deemed that the person known as Pythagoras was a combination of the memories of different persons. It is of little supprise to me that the same would be true of Jesus, Alexander the Great, Moses, Enoch, Sumarian kings, Pharaohs and a whole host of those personages from antiquity. Isn't the Old Testament a contempory re-edit from their eariler sources? Didn't the group (or some books) from Quram (Dead Sea Scrolls) have issues with the "Jews" of their day?

Perhaps you think that I've missed the point? That all these stories were fabricated from the Middle (Dark) Age(s). Well perhaps this is true, but there are some basic questions that begged to be asked, as I am a rather simple guy. After all why does a 55 year old musician from Califorina now living on a farm in the middle of nowhere even need to know any of this? I will beg your patience as observation and questions come to me.

First, lets deal with your Chevrons also known as The Broad Arrow, as I have looked at those also. They were used on this continent (before the Revolution) to post "The Kings Property",such as the kings forest and such. Looks to me as a image of the compass as in masonic imagery, which would be right at home in Egypt. that dosen't help us with the dating per se, of the Sea People or even to their idenity, but I would find it a streach to think that such a symbolic figure would be invented in England or France then transposed and transcribed on ruins in Egypt! it makes more sense to me that Egypts history came first. I see as a more interesting question, why the oil giant "Chevron" choose their name as they did? Of course today not many people or even historians would ever see a relevent correlation of old symbol and modern meaning. They were occult (hidden) in their own time. It's not like their meaning has been forgotten, they were never known by the public.

Another comment... In recent years there have been forensic tests done on many items found in the deserts of the Mid East. Buried, unaffected by modern, mideval containamation or religious zealots. As so many other items (writings,books etc.) have been dystroyed, tamperd with, re-copied, edited and so forth to further an agenda. So question...Could these items (Nag Hammady, Dead Sea Scrolls etc. for instance) have been influnced by those of the 12th century CE?

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 19, 2010, 12:19:38 AM
Actually, had I the time and the ability, I would have written much more concerning the sites shown!  There exists connections in every one, in one manner or another.  My major problem is the fact that I have devoted so much time to this research, and I have read so much, that the connections exist in my mind, and just natuarally make my "light" come on!  But, since very few of you would have had twenty or more years to read and re-read so much material, then these "automatic" connections cannot occur!  Or at least they should not occur for most of you?  laugh!

Totally related to the small "opus" presented above, is the work of Immanuel Velikovsky!  And much of the above is totally related to his work, that can be found in his book entitled ""Peoples of the Sea!"  To "again?" bring this to mind, I would suggest that you read said book!  I. V. (as I abbreviate his name) went to great lengths to make the point that the King we now know of as Rammeses III (and please note that his name can be spelled numerous ways in various literature) is but a doppleganger of a later
Egyptian king, that we have been told is called Nectanebo II!  But, the two kings are now seperated via the current ruling class of historians and chronologers by a time period of hundreds of years!

In the book, "Peoples of the Sea", I.V. goes to great lengths to make his case!  And, at least to me, he made a good one!  Now, I would suppose that many of you would be hardpressed to go against a history that has supposedly been hundreds or at least a hundred years in the making, and you would be following the very path that almost every other history student has been forced to swallow as "gospel" for the last 100 years or more!  But, if you were to read "Peoples of the Sea" with an "open" mind, then maybe you will see some of the apparent truths he presents to support his theory?  And, perhaps not?  But, for better or worse (god I still use that old phrase!) Velikovsky makes a case to move Rameses III from the 12th century BC to the 4th century BC!  Thus there appears a gap of about 800 years, if one can assume that Velikovsky was correct!

So, first you need to read the book!



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 19, 2010, 12:28:13 AM
Assuming you have or will read the above book, I would now suggest that the entire point of my "Opus" was to prepare you for a move even more forward in time!  Thus you might well have noticed all of the material concerning the "Middle Ages" and especially the "Crusader" period!  It is thus in the "Crusader" period that I will or maybe have contended is the actual time where in someone with a possible name of Rameses or Nectanabo, in Egyptian, actually saw the same events occur once again!!

Yes, I will contend that the events that Velikovsky moved from the 12th century BCE to the 4th century BCE, should be moved to somewhere in the 10th to the 13th century CE!  And, perhaps the actual date(s) or even closer to the 15th century?

But, as the wizard said; "That is a horse of a different colour!"  chuckle  But that is also where "chevrons" become apparent!  As well as "Isles", etc.!



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 19, 2010, 10:25:32 PM
A small note concerning "chevrons", and especially those shown in the Egytian stone carvings!  Since I have written most of what I have presented above, many months of years ago, I shall merely state that if the "reproductions" of these stone cut panels are correct, then it seems the artist(s) recognized some differences between the players?  Why should I suggest thus?  

Well if one can find a site that displays the "reproduction" of these stone murals to a great degree, then you will notice that the number of "chevrons" seems to vary from warrior (kinght?) to warrior!  That is some seem to display as many as six chevrons and the number seems to go down to a minimum of two or so!  In that case it might well be assumed that these "marks" determine "rank!"  E.g., the more chevrons, the higher the rank of the individual depicted!  Since some histories have described these invaders as "barbarians", since they were determined to be the Philistines, then the obvious significance of both their apparel and their arms, and the wearing of "rank" seems to  seperate these warriors from marauding bands of barbarians, and since I.V. also proposed the very same thing, I concurr with his opinion!

In past historical accounts of this invasion of Egypt in the 12th century BCE, a lot was written about the "bagggage train" of these "vagabond" invaders, a "train" that not only included their foodstuffs, and other provisions, but also their "wives?" or "concubines?", etc., all supposedly pulled by Oxen!

Certainly one must consider that "every" army, at all times, had to have such a "train", and sometimes, in some places, and in some works, it was / is called a "laager!"  A look at this word is certainly in order, as well as a search of times where various historians have used this term!

Now the entire point of this particular post is to remind you that I.V. made the above points in order to connect these invaders, not to some "hord" of "vandals", but to an organized invading force of some great degree of development and sophistication!  Thus I.V. connected the invasion of the so called Philistines in the 12th century BCE to the more recent historical invasion of Egypt by the Persians!

Thus the 800 year movement!  But I.V. also recognized that if his theory was correct then the entire cohesiveness of Egyptian chronlolgy must also fall!  And it would be a "great crash!" indeed! Because everything in Egyptian chronology is connencted!  All history and chronology books would have to be destroyed and re-written!

So, let's see?  If you were a currently accepted "specialist" in Egyptian history, and you had been trained by one of the "great" Egyptian experts" and if you had already written numerous "peer reviewed" articles, and even books, or text-books on the subject, and you were faced with a "great slap in the face", would you be willling to come out and suport such a change?  Would you "turn the other cheek/"



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 19, 2010, 11:37:20 PM
Concerning the lack of respect given to any idea that is outside of current historical thought, I would again refer you to my "reply no. 4" above and the reply given by one of the moderators of the Wikipedia article, thus it was said;  

"Regards, (talk) 03:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes

I think you misunderstand verifiablity, look at WP:Verify - we aren't verifying the idea but checking the source. This is basically an insignificant (eg not taken seriously by academics) fringe view and should only be in articles about Fomenko and his (and associates) ideas. See WP:NPOV and WP:Fringe. Dougweller (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)}"

Thus you can clearly see that the moderators of Wikipedia, will not consider "verification" but merely the "reliability of the source(s)!"  As I have written earlier, if your source is something as clear as the Sun in the sky, it is not even considered!  It seems that more credence is found in the words of what they consider as "reliable" sources rather than "Common Sense!", which was a famous series of articles written by Thomas Paine, during the American revolution!  Thank God the defenders of Wikipedia and every other recognized historical site in the world, seems to have considered that the works of Paine, must have had, "reliable sources!"  chuckle!



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on February 26, 2010, 12:44:00 AM
Perhaps some of you need to see and hear this?

Please take the time to watch all of the vids?



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on March 17, 2010, 09:53:23 PM
By the way, I just thought I'd let any of you who would actually read my posts here that according to the Fomenko theory, in most of ouir past whenever you see the word "Greek", you are seeing a reference to the Byzantine ones!  And, whenever you see the word Macedonian, you are seeing a reference to the Othmans!

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Truth Seeker on March 19, 2010, 01:58:39 AM
Hey Ron, I read your posts.

A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue".

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on April 05, 2010, 01:13:51 AM
Sorry to be so long in replying!  I feel really bad that I am unable to respond to the post by Charles!  My reasoning, which is directly related to my I.Q., means that on many points, I feel that anything I might say, would be worthless since Charles is by far one of the most articulate, and knowledegable persons I have ever conversed with!

I am most honored just for him to devote some space to my views!

I really don't know just what to say?

You wrote in your last post;

"A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue"."

My answer has to be, that I agree with you!

But, since this site makes anything with overa five ot ten lines pop in and out makes it very hard for me to type, as well as think at the same time!

Sos, as much as I hate to do so, I will have to try and respond on the next post!

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Ronald L. Hughes on April 05, 2010, 01:26:56 AM
You wrote in your last post;

"A person that reads Herodotus will realize that many of the persons discribed, saw themselves of different races and peoples other than what us modern folks call "The Greeks". Of course your gonna tell me that that was written by a Bryantine in 1324? Just being sarcastic here but seriously... just because something isn't "red" dosent mean it has to be "blue"."

I would suggest that we are almost on the same wave-length?  Certainly, much like "wave-lengths"of light, there seems to exist wave-links of the past!  This is almost exactly what the Fomenko Group found!  That is, they reportedly invesitgated numerous old accounts, and in most cases, it seems that they actually counted all of the words, or in some cases, all of the letters involved in the accounts!  Then, much like a butcher, they "weighed" the evidence!  It seems that sometimes they weighed the number of times a certain action was mentioned, and sometimes, they measured the number of times that a rulers name,etc. was mentioned, etc.!  Then they compared the "volume" as compared to the other sources available that spoke of similar or exact times, and created a new mathematical comparison!

But, I cannot do the Fomenko theory justice via my words, but some of you must actually read them for yourselves?



Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: Truth Seeker on April 06, 2010, 06:42:10 PM
I would say that we all are trying to get to the bottom of these chronolgy issues, at least at this site. So we can place timelines and events in a proper sequence. Even though we may have our own bias, I see it as a evolutionary process, of which we all can benefit from.

What may be sometimes an annoying prospective for me here at D.O.M. still continues to open my eyes and adds to my knowledge base.  I am still learning how to articulate points I see, with more clarity. It is easier to demostrate problems than to truly present something that is irrefutable, especially in the area of chronolgy. One thing that is important to me, is to not let just one prospective become like a religon for me! Unless of course I learn that there is just only one way to see it. Then I will declare that "I've seen the light".

Title: Re: Competing Chronologies
Post by: terrence77 on November 17, 2010, 03:02:44 AM
There are several competing chronologies for the kings, but the farthest they are ever off from each other is about 10 years...You can find more information about Competing Chronologies from here