A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij.
New chronology and new concept of the english history.
British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire
---------------------------------------------------------------
© Copyright A.T.Fomenko, G.V.Nosovskij
---------------------------------------------------------------
(SHORT SCHEME)
ABSTRACT
This article is devoted to the investigation of
traditional version of English chronology and English history. It
should be mentioned that this tradition was established only in
15-17th cc.(and especially by Scaliger and Petavius) as a result
of attempts to construct the global chronology of Europe and Asia
at that time.
The results of our investigation show that modern version of
English history (which is in fact a slightly modernized version
of 15-16th cc.), was artificially prolonged backward and became
much more long as it was in reality. The real history of England,
as it was reflected in written documents, was much more short.
The same is true for other countries.
In correct version, ancient and medieval English events are
to be transferred to the epoch which begins from 9-10th cc.
Moreover, many of these events prove to be the reflections of
certain events from real Byzantine-Roman history of 9-15th cc.
Consequently, the Great Britain Empire is a direct successor of
medieval Byzantine Empire.
This effect for English history corresponds to the similar
"shortening effects" for traditional histories of other countries
(Italy, Greece, Egypt, Russia etc.). Such effects were discovered
earlier by the authors (see our previous publications). A
discussion of the whole problem of global chronology and a
history of this problem one can find in [1],[24]. English history
is not an exemption from the "rule".
We do not think that all speculations which are suggested
here are final ones. Surely, they are subject to further
corrections and clarification. Nevertheless, the general concept
is quite clear and seems to be a final one.
The aim of present work is only to present main points of our
new version of reconstruction of the real English history.
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL ENGLISH HISTORY
2.1. The most old English chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum"
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
"Histoires of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of
Monmouth"
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles
2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations and
countries according to ancient English chronicles?
2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history
2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic
streams"
2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D. England
as the Roman colony
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830. Six kingdoms and their
union
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. The epoch is finished by
Danish conquest and then by disintegration of
Dutch kingdom in England
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066. Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon
dynasty and it's fall
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327. Norman dynasty and after
it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards
2.3.7. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.
3. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY. GREAT
BRITAIN EMPIRE AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR OF MEDIEVAL BYZANTINE-ROMAN
EMPIRE
3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams of England and
Byzantine-Roman empire
3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
from one side and medieval Byzantine empire from another side.
General concept of correspondence between English and
Byzantine histories
3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism
table")
3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and Byzantine
history 378-553 A.D. 275-year shift
3.3.2. English history of 800-1040 and Byzantine
history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift
3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and Byzantine
history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift
4. CORRECT ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH MORE
DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new concept of English history
4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
into the medieval English history (of the island
Anglia)?
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK ABOUT
REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered Britain
(and the first king of britts)
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a contemporary
of Julius Caesar?
5.3. Biblical events in English chronicles
5.4. Do we interpret ancient texts in a proper way? Problem
of vowels restoration
5.5. Geography and chronology of biblical events
5.5.1. Problems with traditional geographical
localizations
5.5.2. Where ancient Troy was located?
5.5.3. Where Moses traveled in reality?
5.6. Why English chronicles suggested that both Russia and
England were located on islands?
5.7. Where was the land Britain which was conquered by
Brutus located? In what direction his fleet cruised?
5.8. With whom Brutus fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
5.9. With whom Julius Caesar fights while conquering of Britain =
Albania?
5.10. Where was London located in 10-11th cc.A.D.?
5.11. Who were scots in 10-12th cc.A.D. and were did they live?
Where was Scotland located in 10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.12. Five original languages of ancient Britain. Which
nations used these languages and where did they live
in 10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.13. Where were located six original English kingdoms
Britain, Kent, Sussex, Wessex, Essex and Mercia in
10-12th cc.A.D.?
5.14. A shift of originally Byzantine map to the land of
modern Great Britain resulted in duplicating of many
geographical terms
5.15. William I the Conqueror and Hastings battle in 1066
A.D. The fourth crusade in 1204 A.D.
5.15.1. Two well-known wars in England and Byzantine
empire have the same origin
5.15.2. English version of William the Conqueror story
5.15.3. Byzantine version of the Constantinople's
conqueror
5.15.4. A list of correspondences between events from
Byzantine and English chronicles
5.16. Medieval Russia from the point of view of English
chronicles. When did apostle Paul write his message to
galats and who they were?
REFERENCES
1. INTRODUCTION
This work belongs to the scope of investigations carried out
by authors in order to give a critical analysis of ancient and
medieval chronology, and also - to try a reconstruction of real
ancient chronology. The whole history of the problem one can find
in A.T.Fomenko's books [1],[24]. In these books some new
statistical methods of obtaining true dates for ancient events
recorded in old chronicles were suggested. As a result, a new
chronology of Europe, Asia, Egypt and Northern Africa based on a
statistical investigation of ancient texts, was suggested in
[1],[24]. One also can find there a list of all publications by
A.T.Fomenko and his colleagues devoted to chronological problems.
This new concept of global history and chronology confirms
some ideas which were expressed by different scientists in
16-20th cc. The most important were ideas of famous Russian
scientist N.A.Morozov (1854-1946) who had an extremely wide range
of scientific interests in many different branches of natural
science and history. Very interesting works devoted to the
problems of traditional chronology were written by Isaac Newton,
J.Gardouin, R.Baldauf, E.Johnson and others.
As a result of application of statistical methods to
historical science, A.T.Fomenko discovered a "fiber structure" of
our modern "textbook in ancient and medieval history". In such a
way we will call a modern chronological tradition in history
which is expressed in all our textbooks. It was proved that this
"textbook" consist of four more short "textbooks" which speak
about the same events, the same historical epochs. These short
"textbooks" were then shifted one with respect to other on the
time axis and then glued together preserving these shifts. The
result is our modern "textbook" which shows the history much
longer than it was in reality. To be more precise, we speak here
only about a "written" history, i.e., such history which left
it's traces in written documents which finally, after their
certain evolution, we possess today. Of course before it, there
was a long "pre-written" history, but information about it is
lost.
Resume is as follows. History which we in principle could
learn about today, starts only in 9-10th cc. "A.D." (i.e.,
1100-1200 years ago). And the very name "A.D." attached to the
era which we use now, is not correct.
New results concerning the problem of reconstruction of real
ancient chronology one can find in two last Fomenko's books
[4,5] devoted to history and chronology.
An important step to the reconstruction of real ancient
chronology was made by publication of a book [3] written by
A.T.Fomenko, V.V.Kalashnikov and G.V.Nosovskij. In this book the
true date of compilation of a famous ancient scientific
manuscript, the Ptolemy's "Almagest", was (approximately)
determined as a result of statistical analysis of numerical
astronomical data in the "Almagest". Traditionally it is assumed
that the "Almagest" was compiled not later than in 2nd c. A.D. In
[3] it is proved that the real date of it's compilation belongs
to the time interval from 7th century to 13th century A.D.
Later, in 1992-1993, A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij applied
new statistical methods to Russian history. In Russian history
there also were discovered chronological shifts and duplicates.
It proves to be very much different from well-known version of
Russian history which was suggested in epoch of Romanov dynasty
reign in Russia. The book "Chronology and General Concept of
Russian History" by A.T.Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij is being
printed (in Russian).
In 1992-1993 authors recognized that the history of
development of English chronology and English history itself is a
very interesting and important point in the whole scope of global
chronology reconstruction. In our analysis of Russian old
documents it was necessary to use also some English documents.
And immediately we came upon several such amazing facts that, it
become quite clear to us that English history (which is rather
"spoiled" in modern "textbook") gives new and important
information to the reconstruction of real chronology of Europe
and Asia.
We tried our best to make this work independent from our
previous works. Nevertheless, such dependence exists. That is why
we recommend to anyone who really wants to understand the whole
problem of reconstruction the English history as it as in
reality, to look through mentioned above books and scientific
publications by authors. We believe that this work is good for
the beginning and it could serve as a starting point to the
reader. We tried to avoid citation from other our works here (as
far as it was possible).
It is pleasure for us to thank Mrs. Laura Alexander (USA) for
her excellent assistance in arranging materials concerning
English history. Her energy very much inspired our work on
English history.
We thank T.N.Fomenko for several good ideas which improved
some of our results concerning parallels between English and
Byzantine history and also for valuable remarks which made this
text better.
2. BRIEF REVIEW OF TRADITIONAL CONCEPT OF ENGLISH HISTORY
2.1. The most old English chronicles
2.1.1. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
To understand a material we are going to present here, it
would be better if a reader knows main things from English, Roman
and Byzantine history. As to Roman and Byzantine history, we
assume that it is more or less the case. But old English history
is not so generally well-known. That is why we are going to
present here a brief review of "English history textbook".
Surely, we could simply suggest that a reader looks through
one of modern books concerned with English history before he
reads this paper. But all such books are necessarily the
secondary texts which, in fact, copy an information from more old
texts and documents devoted to English history. The problem is
that this coping proves to be not so good (part of information is
lost). That is why we prefer to analyse medieval historical texts
themselves rather then modern textbooks, which are based on them.
An important advantage of these medieval texts is that they were
written more close to the time of creation of now traditional
global chronological version (it was I.Scaliger's one). Our
experience says that an information about old history was been
lost while publishing new and new textbooks from that time up to
now. Medieval texts are more valuable for reconstruction of real
history.
Our analysis was based mostly on three famous medieval
English chronicles: Anglo-Saxon Chronicle [2], Nennius' "Historia
Brittonum" [8] and Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum"
[9]. In fact, these texts form a basis for modern concept of old
and medieval English history.
Also we used well-known "Chronological Tables" which were
compiled by J.Blair [6] in 18th c. - beginning of 19th c. These
fundamental tables cover all historical epochs which seemed
important to experts in the end of 19th century.
Now it is assumed that so-called "legendary" English history
started from the time of Trojan war, i.e., in 12-13th cc. B.C.
Nevertheless a 1000-year period from Trojan war to the epoch of
Julius Caesar (1st c. B.C.) is considered usually as a "dark
time".
From the time of creation and establishment of modern
chronological concept (by I.Scaliger and D.Petavius in 16-17th
cc.) it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60
B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands. But it is
known today that documents speak about English history only from
approximately 1 A.D., i.e. from the rein of Octavian Augustus. It
was the 1 A.D. when Anglo-Saxon Chronicle began its records ([2],
p.4).
The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle consists of several separate
manuscripts:
Manuscript A: The Parker Chronicle
(60 B.C. - A.D. 1070),
Manuscript B: The Abigdon Chronicle I
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 977),
Manuscript C: The Abigdon Chronicle II
(60 B.C. - A.D. 1066),
Manuscript D: The Worcester Chronicle
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1079),
(with twelfth-century addition 1080 - 1130 A.D.),
Manuscript E: The Laud (Petersburg) Chronicle
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1153),
Manuscript F: The Bilingual Canterbury Epitome
(A.D. 1 - A.D. 1058).
It is well-known that all these manuscripts duplicate each
other in the sense that they all speak about the same events, but
in more or less details. That is why all they are placed in the
publication [2] parallel to each other in a very convenient
manner, which makes it easy to compare different records
concerning the same year. Maybe, all these manuscripts have the
same written original and in fact represent different scripts of
one old chronicle.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle covers an epoch from 1 A.D. to 11th
century (except manuscript E which stops in 1153).
It is traditionally assumed that all these manuscripts were
written approximately in 11-12th cc., just in the form which we
have today. But it is only a hypothesis which is strongly based
on the Scaliger's chronology. And it sounds not very natural. For
example, manuscript A exists now only in two "copies" and both of
them were made only in 16th c. (see [2], p.xxxiii). The original
version (from which these two copies were made) was practically
burned out in a fire. As to other manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, their history is not clear from [2]. For example, it
is not pointed out what were the methods of determining of dates
when existing copies were made. One could have an idea that the
dating was as follows: if last records of these manuscripts refer
to 11-12th cc., then the copies we now posses are necessarily
written just in that form in 11-12th cc. Leaving aside other
objections, we must say that this speculation in fully based on
Scaliger's chronology. If real dates of last mentioned events
change, then such dating of a manuscript would also change.
Difficulties with reconstruction of a true story for origin
of these manuscripts are well-known among experts. For
example David Knowles had to claim that:
"The question of provenance and interdependence of the
various versions [of the Chronicle] are so complicated that any
discussion soon assumes the appearance of an essay in higher
mathematics" ([2],p.xxxi).
Moreover, G.N.Garmonsway says that any modern analysis of
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is based on the Charles Plummer's revision
(1892-1899) of it's original edition published by John Earle in
1865. It should be mentioned that manuscripts A and E are again
"associated" (G.N.Garmonsway's expression) with certain persons
from 16th century - Archbishop Parker (1504-1575) and Archbishop
Laud (1573-1645). Here is his text:
"Any account of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is necessary based
on Charles Plummer's revision of the edition of John Earle (1865)
which was published in two volumes by the Oxford University Press
in 1892-9... Plummer's edition... gives prominence on opposite
pages to manuscripts A and E, associated respectively with the
names of Archbishop Parker (1504-75) and Archbishop Laud
(1573-1645);...The other manuscripts were once in the possession
of Sir Robert Cotton (1571-1631), and are to be found in the
Cottonian collection of manuscripts in the British
Museum"([2],p.xxxi).
It seems that all the manuscripts of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
which are available today were actually written (or revised) not
earlier than in 15-16th centuries. However, they are considered
to be written in this form in 11-12th cc. Probably the only
reason for such point of view is that traditional dates of the
last events from Anglo-Saxon Chronicle belong to this epoch:
11-12th cc. But such reason is not enough. It is possible that
events from 11-12th cc. were described by somebody in 15-16th cc.
and we actually possess his secondary text which could be very
far from an original version. And also, the dates of events from
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle strongly depend on a used chronological
concept. If it changes then the dating of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
would change automatically.
There is a strong argument which suggests that manuscripts
of Anglo-Saxon Chronicle are actually of a rather late origin.
The problem is that all these manuscripts use modern "A.D." era
which came into regular practical use only in 15th century. It is
a known fact in traditional history. Later we will also present
some facts which suggest that the authors of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle were already familiar with J.Scaliger's chronological
concept (16th c.), and by no means - with a chronological concept
of Matthew Vlastar (16th c.). It means that Anglo-Saxon Chronicle
was written much later then it is usually accepted.
The reason for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle to be paid such great
attention in our reconstruction of English history is very
simple. It turns out that
"Thanks to the example of Bede, the Chronicle is the first
history written in English to use his mastery innovation of
reckoning years as from the Incarnation of Our Lord - "Years of
Grace" as they were called in England."([2],p.xxiv).
Concerning the way of presenting dates in Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we should make a remark. It is accepted that in
medieval England they used for "A.D." era the following formula:
"Years from the Incarnation of Our Lord". It is accepted today
that this formula was equivalent to the formula "Years of Grace".
But this equivalence in not so evident and requires a special
investigation. (We will return to this subject later and discuss
it in more details). Note that there is a strange similarity
between two well-known names-terms
Grace - Greece.
Maybe the original (and forgotten today) meaning of a
formula "Years of Grace" differs from one which is accepted
today. Maybe it was "years in Greece", "Greek years" or something
like this. It is possible also that there is a relation between
terms Grace, Greece and Christ. Was the name of Christ associated
in some sense with a name of country "Greece"? For example Christ
religion = "Greece religion"? It might be because in medieval
epoch Greece was a name of Byzantine empire, and another it's
name was Romea, Rome. So Christian, "Roman" religion could be
called also as "Greek religion"; but if so then there might be a
confusion between "A.D.", "Christ" era and old "Greek", Byzantine
era which was used sometimes, as well as "A.D.", with it's
thousands omitted. It could be not obvious which era was actually
used in an old documents which indicate "Years of Grace". Of
course, such kind of similarity between different terms could not
be considered as very strong arguments supporting any point of
view. It play a role of preliminary speculations and should be
considered as a serious argument only in the case when it appears
(repeats) constantly in a long historical parallelism, when
similar names arise simultaneously for hundreds of years in two
different epochs after one of them is shifted in time as a whole
and then compared with another one.
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle was written in a very laconic manner,
it was divided into chapters (fragments) each of them devoted to
a certain year. Many years are not described at all (there are
some lacunas in the text). It is considered today that
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle speaks about events from the beginning of
A.D. to 11-12th centuries. See Fig.1. The text of Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle seem to be really very old. Absence of long and
"beautifully designed" periods in the text (typical for
historical literature of 15-16th cc.) suggests that Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle is an important historical document which was based on
some really ancient records. Surely, it was edited in 16-17th cc.
and a main question is: what credit should we give to
chronologists of 15-17 centuries who actually dated events in
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as we have it now?
2.1.2. Nennius' "Historia Brittonum".
Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" is a rather short text, only
about 24 pages in [8].
There exist more then 30 manuscripts of Nennius' book which
are known today (see [8]).
"The earliest manuscripts are dated today by 9th or 10th
centuries, and the latest - by 13th or even 14th centuries. In
some of the manuscripts are indications that the author was
Gildas. Nennius is called as the author sufficiently rare. Thus,
this manuscript is possibly - compilation... The original text
was lost, we do not have it today. But there exists its Irish
translation of 11th century" ([8],p.269).
Translation was made from the publication: "Nennius et
l'Historia brittonum", P.,1934.
Some manuscripts are ended with pages from "Annals Cambriae",
which is considered to be compiled approximately in 954 A.D.
Nennius' "Historia Brittonum" does not have nor chronological
subdivision neither any chronological notes except the following
two ones:
1) A table titled "About six ages of the world" is placed at
the beginning of the "Historia". It presents time distances in
years between some biblical events - and already according to
Scaliger's calculations, which were carried out only in 16th c.
2) Chapter XVI of the "Historia" has a section titled "The
ground of the dating" , which speaks about the relative distances
(in years) between a few events from English history.
In both cases chronological notes are very brief.
Resume is that it is unclear, who and when actually wrote the
"Historia". It's original text does not exist today, a
translation which is considered to be carried out in 11th c. The
text does not have it's own chronological scale. Surely, all
questions which arise with Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, refer to
"Historia" also. Moreover, Nennius' text is written in a free
artistic manner with many stylistic accessories. It suggests that
this manuscript is of rather late origin. Such text could be
written only in an atmosphere of a deep and well developed
literary tradition when many people use writing and reading books
and paper is not a treasure.
It is accepted today that Nennius describes certain events in
a time interval from the epoch of Trojan war to 10-11th cc. A.D.
In fact it is a result of only a traditional chronological
concept (which suggests that short Nennius' text covers an
extremely large 2000-year historical period) that one could find
today giant lacunas in chronology of "Historia". Fig. 1 shows by
a dotted line the epoch which is considered to be covered by
"Historia". According to traditional chronological concept
Nennius easily omits whole centuries in his story, makes giant
chronological jumps without any explanations. He seems not to
notice it at all and continues his story after such jumps as if
nothing was missed.
2.1.3. Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum".
"Histories of the kings of Britain by Geoffrey of Monmouth".
It is generally accepted today that this chronicle was
written in 30th or 40th of 12th century ([8], p.196) by
Galfridus Monemutensis who based it on Nennius' text, sometimes
even copying Nennius "errors" ([8], p.231, comments to chap. 17;
see also [8], p.244). Galfridus Monemutensis' book is rather big
one - about 130 pages in [8]. In opposition to Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle his text has no chronological subdivision (no indication
about years). His writing style was rather complicated, with many
accessories, moralities, philosophical excursions et cetera.
Galfridus is even considered to be not a historian only but also
a poet. Surely, the traditional point of view that Galfridus
wrote his book after Nennius, is correct. It is known also that
Galfridus made an extensive use of "Ecclesiastic History of the
English Nation" (in Latin) by Bede Venerable ([9], p.244). It is
assumed that Bede's "History" covers 597-731 A.D.
It is remarkable that modern commentators point out "the
extremely clear and evident Galfridus' orientation of the antique
tradition" ([9], p.207). For example, Galfridus not only used
ancient plots, but also copied a stylistic manner of ancient
authors ([9], p.207). It seems that Galfridus writes his book
being fully influenced by the atmosphere of antiquity. It was
pointed out that Galfridus copies some of his topics directly
from ancient authors (for example, from Stacius), but does not
give any references ([9], p.236).
Galfridus Monemutensis' "Historia Brittonum" was extremely
popular in medieval times. "Today we have about two hundreds (! -
Auth.) copies of his "History",... which were written in
different places starting from 12th century and until 15th
century, i.e., up to appearance of the first printed edition"
([9],p.228). At first time "Historia" was printed in Paris in
1508.
Fig. 1 shows a historical epoch which is assumed to be
covered by Galfridus' text (according to traditional chronology).
Notice that it is approximately the same time interval as for
Nennius' case: namely, from Trojan war up to 8th century A.D. Of
course, Galfridus' book is much bigger then Nennius' one, but
being referred again to the giant 2000-year time interval, it
could not cover it all without huge lacunas. And really,
traditional chronology states that Galfridus "omit" large
historical epochs. But it is strange, that Galfridus himself does
not mind it at all. He calmly continues his story without
notifying a reader that he sometimes actually misses whole
historical epochs in his chronology.
2.1.4. Some other old English chronicles
In our work we use also some other English chronicles of
9-13th centuries, particularly those represented in a book by
V.I.Matuzova "English medieval documents" [10]. Here we would
like to present a very interesting list which was compiled by
V.I.Matuzova as a result of her investigation of these chronicles
rather then to characterize them in details. We will discuss this
subject in the next section.
2.2. What were the medieval names for modern cities, nations
and countries according to ancient English chronicles?
Many people use to think that medieval chronicles refer to
such well-known areas (regions) as England, London, Russia, Kiev
etc. with just the same names as today, and so in general there
is no problem to recognize what place old documents are speaking
about. Sometimes, in more new documents, it is actually the case.
But in more old, original documents such situation seems to be
rather an exception then a rule. Old chronicles very often use
absolutely different geographical names and it is a nontrivial
task to understand what regions (areas, towns et cetera) they are
really speaking about.
It is also a problem that old documents in general use many
different names for each country, land, nation etc. Very often
these names have nothing to do with those we use today. The names
of ancient nations, countries and cities which are known today,
were fixed only in 18-20th centuries. But before that time there
were various opinions concerning what names to use. These
opinions were often quite different from each other. It is a very
interesting question to analyse the names which were used in
medieval English documents for cities, nations and countries
which are so well-known today with their modern names. It turns
out after such analysis, that medieval authors seem to have quite
different views on old and ancient history. That is why modern
specialists in history usually claim that almost all medieval
people were "extremely wrong" in history, that they had
"fantastic concepts" about it, "confused and mixed historical
epochs", "did not distinguish antiquity and medieval epoch" and
so on.
In a following list some medieval "synonyms" of modern
accepted names and terms are presented. Each entry of the list
shows a modern term and is followed by it's medieval synonyms.
AZOV SEA = ALANIA =
Meotedisc lakes, Valana,
Meotedisc fen, Alania,
Maeotidi lacus, Valana,
Maeotidi paludes, Valvy,
palus Maeotis, Polovtzy ?! - see below.
paludes Maeotis,
paludes Maeotidae,
Paluz Meotidienes.
ALBANIANS = AMAZONS LAND =
Liubene, Maegda land,
Albani. Maegda londe,
Amazonia.
BULGARIANS = BUG RIVER =
Wlgari, Armilla.
Bulgari,
Bougreis.
VANDALS = HUNGARY =
Wandali, Hungaria,
Sea-cost Slavs. Hunia,
Ungaria,
Minor Ungaria.
BYZANTINE EMPIRE = VALACHIANS =
Graecia, Coralli,
Constantinopolis, Blachi,
Ilac,
Blac,
Turks ! (see below).
VALACHIA = VOLGA RIVER =
Balchia. Ethilia.
GALITZK-VOLYNSK RUSSIA = GERMANY =
Galacia, Gothia,
Gallacia. Mesia,
Theutonia,
Germania,
Allemania,
Jermaine.
HIBERNIC OCEAN = HIBERNIA =
The English Channel Ireland (!)
Hibernicum occeanum.
GOTHIA = GUNNS =
Germany, Hunni,
Island Gotland, Huni,
Scandinavia, Hun.
Tavrida (=old name of Crimea).
DACKS = DENMARK =
Dani, Denemearc,
Daneis. Dacia,
Dania,
Desemone.
DUTCH = DARDANELLES (the strait) =
Daci, St. Georg strait =
Dani, branchium Sancti Georgii.
Norddene,
Denen.
DERBENT (passage) = DNEPR RIVER =
Alexander gates = Aper.
Alexandres herga,
Porta ferrea Alexandri,
claustra Alexandri.
DOGI = DON RIVER =
Russians (see below). Danai,
Thanais,
Tanais.
MEDIEVAL RUSSIA = DANUBE RIVER =
Susie, Danubius,
Russie, Hister,
Ruissie, Danuvius,
Rusia, Damaius,
Russia, Deinphirus,
Ruthenia, Danube.
Rutenia,
Ruthia,
Ruthena,
Ruscia,
Russcia,
Russya,
Rosie.
IRON GATES = IRELAND =
see "Derbent". Hybernia.
ICELAND = CAUCASUS =
Ysolandia. beorg Taurus,
Caucasus.
CASPIAN SEA = CASSARIA =
Caspia garsecge, Chasaria (! (see below)
mare Caspium.
KIEV = CHINESE =
Chyo (!), Cathaii.
Cleva (!),
Riona (!),
CORALLS = RED SEA =
Wlaches (see above), mare Rubrum.
Turks (see above),
ENGLISH CHANNEL = MARBURG =
Hibernic ocean = Merseburg.
Hibernicum occeanum.
MESIA = MONGOLIANS =
Moesia = Germany (see above), Moal,
Tatars (see above),
NARVA = GERMANS =
Armilla. Germanici=
Germani,
Teutonici,
Theutonici,
Allemanni.
NETHERLANDS = NORMANS =
Frisia, Arise. Nordmenn.
OCEAN= PECHENEGS (medieval
neighbours of Russians) =
Garsecg, Getae.
Oceano,
Oceanus,
Occeanus,
Ocean.
POLOVTZY (medieval
neighbours of Russians) =
PRUSSIA =
Planeti, Prutenia (!).
Captac, (P-Rutenia = P-Russia).
Cumani, PRUSSES =
Comanii, Prateni,
Alani, Pruteni,
Values, Pructeni,
Valani. Prusceni,
(See Comment 1.) Praceni,
Pruceni.
RIONA = RUGS =
Kiev (see above) Russians, , Sea-cost
Slavs (see below)
RUSSIANS = RUTHENS =
Russii, Russians (see above)
Dogi (!),
Rugi (!),
Rutheni (!),
Rusceni.
THE ARCTIC OCEAN = SITHIA =
Scith ocean = Sciffia garsecg, Scithia (see above)
Occeanus Septentrionalis,
mare Scythicum.
SCANDINAVIANS = SCITHIA =
Gothi. Sithia,
SCYTHS Barbaria,
Scithes, Scithia,
Scythae, Scythia,
Cit (!). Sice (!).
SEA-SIDE SCLAVI = TAVR =
Winedas, Caucasus (see above)
Wandali, TAVRIDA (CRIMEA) =
Roge. Gothia (!!!)
TANAIS = TATARS (MONGOLS) =
Don (see above) Tartareori,
gens Tartarins,
TYRRHENIAN SEA = Tartari,
mare Tyrene. Tartariti,
Tartarii,
Tattari,
Tatari,
Tartarii,
Thartarei.
TURKS = URAL MOUNTAINS =
Coralli, Riffeng beorgum,
Thurki, Hyberborei montes,
Turci, montes Riph(a)eis,
Blachi, Ilac, Blac (!!!). Hyperborei montes.
FRANCE = FRISIA =
Gallia, The Netherlands (see
Francia. above.)
CHASARIA = CHASARS =
Cassaria, Chazari.
Cessaria (!!!).
CHIO = BLACK SEA =
Kiev (see above) Euxinus,
Pontius,
SCOTLAND = mare Ponticum,
Scotia, mare Majus.
Gutlonde.
CHINGIS-CHAN = JAROSLAV THE WISE
Cingis, (Kiev Princeps Magnus) =
Churchitan, Malesclodus,
Zingiton, Malescoldus.
Chircam, Juriscloth (= Jurius-
Cliyrcam Georgius),
Gurgatan, Juliusclodius (= Julius-
Cecarcarus, Clodius).
Ingischam, Julius Claudius.
Tharsis (!),
DAVID (!),
PRESBYTER IOHANNES (!!).
One remark about Jaroslav the Wise. He was known in medieval
England as "Malescoldus". According to M.N.Alexeev [12] there
were also some other names which were applied to Jaroslav the
Wise in Western historical tradition:
Juriscloht (from Jurius-Georgius),
Juliusclodius (!),
(the last form of Jaroslav's name was used by Norman historian of
12th century - Gijom),
Julius Claudius,
(this form used by Orderic Vitali).
Let us present a typical example of old English historical
text:
"He escaped to the kingdom of Dogs, which we prefer to call
RUSSIA. When the king of [this] land - MALESCLODUS - learned
about him, he was given a great honor" ([13],[14]).
Here is a Latin original text:
"Aufugit ad regnum Dogorum, quod nos melius vocamus Russiam.
Quem rex terrae Malescoldus nomine, ut cognovit quis esset,
honeste retinuit" [13].
Imagine please reading this old text without looking at the
modern comments which suggest that Dogs Kingdom means the same as
Russia. The text would look like this:
"He escaped to the Kingdom of Dogs. When the king of that
land learned about him, he was given a great honor."
Most probably such text would be understood as a story
treating some medieval events in England or Scotland. The word
"Dogs" seems to designate a population in some part of England or
Scotland and the name "Malescoldus" very much looks like a name
of medieval English or Scottish king. Such an interpretation
looks rather natural. One knows from Scottish history, for
example, that there were several kings with a name "Malcolm",
close to "Malescoldus": Malcolm I (943-958), Malcolm II
(1004-1034), Malcolm III (1057-1093) etc.
But such interpretation of this text would definitely
transform some of ancient Russian events into English ones, i.e.,
into ones which are thought to happen on the land of modern
England. This example suggests that even a direct understanding,
not to say about an interpretation, of an old historical text
could be rather ambiguous.
Differences between medieval English writer's opinion and
modern way of understanding and interpretation of medieval terms
occur for texts written in 9-15th centuries (not so old texts,
from the point of view of modern tradition). It means that there
exist several possibilities to interpret medieval documents. The
way of such interpretation which is in general use now, proves to
be not unique. It is only one of possible ways, maybe not the
best one. We are going to show here that this standard way is
really not enough supported by original documents. The above
vocabulary of synonyms (medieval terms-duplicates) is very useful
for our analysis of English history.
2.3. An overview of traditional concept of English history
2.3.1. Scotland and England: two parallel "dynastic streams"
Fig. 1 shows a rough scheme of the English history as it is
considered today. The beginning of English history is placed in
the 1st century B.C. (Julius Caesar's conquest of England).
Starting at this moment and going up to 400 A.D., English
chronicles talk in fact about Roman history. Sometimes they only
mention that certain Roman emperor visit England. According to
English chronicles there were no independent kings in England
before 400 A.D.
We will take J.Blair's "Chronological tables" as a source of
information about general structure of English chronology. These
tables were compiled in the end of 18th c., but the new
information which became available after that time, have not
changed the whole picture of English history and so this
information is not very important for us now.
In 5th century A.D. the Roman power in England came to the
end and in that time the first English kings appeared.
It was a moment when English history divided into:
a) history of England and
b) history of Scotland.
In other words, two dynastic streams began in 5th c.:
a) English stream and
b) Scottish stream.
These two dynastic streams develop in parallel up to 1603
when they transformed into a single dynastic stream of the Great
Britain.
In 404 A.D. the long dynasty of Scottish kings began with
the king Fergus I. It ends in 1603 when a united kingdom of Great
Britain appeared with it's first king Jacob I (1603-1625).
Scottish dynasty looks "very good organized": it practically does
not have simultaneous reigns of different kings, it does not have
breaks and epochs of anarchy also. Being represented graphically
on a time axis, this dynasty covers a 1200-year time interval
from 404 to 1603 A.D. in a very nice, extremely "regular" manner:
reigns of Scottish kings cover one by one without intersections
all this time interval. It is a fine example of "carefully
written history". See dotted line in the Fig.1. The absence of
simultaneous reigns suggests that Scotland was a "geographically
homogeneous" kingdom: it never was divided into several
independent parts.
English history shows a strong contrast to Scottish one in
it's structure.
2.3.2. English history. Epoch from 1st to 445 A.D.
England as the Roman colony.
Time period from 60 B.C. to the beginning of the era A.D. is
considered today as an epoch of conquest of England by Roman army
under the command of Julius Caesar.
Period from 1st century A.D. to 445 A.D. is considered to be
an epoch of Roman occupation of England. England was a Roman
colony at that epoch, and there were no English kings, because
England was ruled formally by Roman emperors themselves. The
description of this period in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle is in fact a
compilation from Roman history of 1st - 5th (middle) centuries
A.D. as it appears in Scaliger's version of chronology.
It was 409 A.D. when, according to the Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, Romans were defeated by Goths, leave England and their
power was never restored after that date:
"In this year the city of Romans was taken by assault by the
Goths, eleven hundred and ten years after it was built.
Afterwards, beyond that, the kings of the Romans ruled no longer
in Britain; in all they had reigned there four hundred and
seventy years since Julius Caesar first came to the country"
([2],p.11).
2.3.3. Epoch from 445 to 830.
Six kingdoms and their union.
From 445 A.D. we see six kingdoms on the English land. Each
of these kingdoms has it's own dynastic stream of rulers. Namely
they are
Brittany = Britain,
Saxons = Kent,
Sussex = South Saxons,
Wessex = West Saxons,
Essex = East Saxons,
Mercia.
These six kingdoms exist up to 828 A.D. when they all are
destroyed in a war and instead of them one kingdom is established
- the kingdom of England. It is the time of Egbert, who becomes
the first king of united England. The time of about 830 A.D.
could be called, following [6],[7], as the end of Six Kingdoms.
"It was 829 A.D., the time of Wessex king Egbert, when all
Anglo-Saxon kingdoms united into one feudal kingdom" [11, p.
172]. See Commentary 2 which speaks about the term "Saxon".
2.3.4. Epoch from 830 to 1040. This epoch
is finished by Danish conquest and then by
disintegration of Dutch kingdom in England.
Beginning from 830 A.D. English chronicles speak about only
one dynastic stream of kings (in united kingdom of England).
In the period 1016-1040 A.D. there was a crucial point in
English history. In 1016 Danish king Cnut Danish the Great
occupied England. He become the king of England, Denmark and
Norway simultaneously. But his state proved to be not stable and
after his death in 1035 it was divided. A representative of old
English dynasty Edward "The Confessor" (1042-1066) became a king
in England after that division. The year 1040 is represented in
the Fig.1 as one of the most important break points in English
history.
2.3.5. Epoch from 1040 to 1066.
Epoch of the Old Anglo-Saxon dynasty and it's fall
The reign of Edward "The Confessor" finished in 1066 A.D.,
which is a well-known date in English history. In that year
Edward died and after that England was occupied by Normans with
their leader William I Conqueror the Bastard. In 1066 William the
Conqueror defeated English-Saxon king Harold in Hastings battle
and as a result became an English king himself. Period of his
reign was 1066-1087. This well-known date (1066 A.D.) is also
represented in the Fig.1.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1066 to 1327.
Norman dynasty and after it - Anjou dynasty. Two Edwards.
This epoch starts with the beginning of Norman dynasty which
ruled England up to 1153 or 1154 ([7], p. 327). Just after it the
next, Anjou dynasty started in England. It existed from 1154 to
1272 ([7], p. 327).
In 1263-1267 a civil war broke out in England ([11], p.260).
After that, in the end of 13th c.- beginning of 14th c., the new
monarchy was established in England. First kings in this new
dynasty were Edward I (1272-1307) and Edward II (1307-1327). In
the end of the considered time period there was a war between
England from one side and Wells, Scotland and Ireland from
another side. England tried to occupy these regions but it's
attempt was not successful. In 1314 Scots won.
2.3.6. Epoch from 1327 to 1602.
This period is started with the reign of Edward III
(1327-1377) and is finished with the establishment of Great
Britain as a union of England and Scotland.
The last period from 1600 to the present time is a
well-known history, which we do not doubt and do not analyse
here.
Resume.
We see that English history could be divided into several
periods which are separated by well-known "break point" dates. We
argue that these division is not occasional one. It reflects the
existence of duplicates and chronological shifts in English
history.
3. PARALLELS BETWEEN ENGLISH AND BYZANTINE-ROMAN HISTORY.
GREAT BRITAIN EMPIRE AS THE DIRECT SUCCESSOR
OF MEDIEVAL BYZANTINE-ROMAN EMPIRE.
3.1. Rough comparison of dynastic streams
of England and Byzantine-Roman Empire.
We saw that old English chronicles claim that England was a
Roman colony for the first 400 years of it's history. Moreover,
when they speak about England at that times, they speak more
about Rome and Byzantine empire then about England itself. That
is why an idea of comparison of English and Roman-Byzantine
dynastic streams seems quite natural. For this purpose we used
the Global Chronological Map, which was already made by
A.T.Fomenko including dynastic streams of Rome, Byzantine empire
and England.
Even first glance on this map shows a surprising statistical
similarity of general structure for density of reigns in
Roman-Byzantine empire and in English dynastic streams. Such
specific "density picture" exists only for these two dynastic
streams - Roman-Byzantine and English ones. Now we are going to
describe this picture.
Consider a partition of time interval from 1st to 1700 A.D.
by decades. Let us calculate the number of kings in England whose
reigns intersect with a certain decade. For example if some
decade is covered by a reign of only one king then let us assign
number 1 to this decade. If it is covered by two reigns then we
assign number 2 to it, and so on. As a result of this procedure
we obtain a graph which shows us how many kings ruled inside each
decade. We call this graph as "density graph" for a given
dynastic stream.
Because of absence of kings in England before 400 A.D. the
values of density graph in that time interval are zero.
Approximately in 440 A.D. there were established 6 dynasties in
England (six kingdoms, see above) which existed up to
(approximately) 830 A.D. when English kingdoms were united. After
that union there was only one English dynasty up to present time
[2].
Similar procedure was applied to the dynastic stream of
Roman-Byzantine empire from 1st to 1500 A.D. Information about
all Roman and Byzantine emperors of 1st-15th centuries was used.
From 1st c. to 4th c. all Roman emperors are supposed to stay in
Italian Rome (and in it's colonies), and after 330 A.D. another
Roman dynasty in New Rome = Constantinople appeared. So, up to
6th c. there were two parallel Roman dynastic streams (sometimes
they had intensive intersections). In 6th c. after a known Gothic
war western Rome lost it's status as emperor's residence. From
that time only one Roman dynasty stream in Constantinople = New
Rome was existing constantly up to 1453. In 1453 after siege of
Constantinople by Turks this stream was finished.
The result of our calculations is shown in the Fig.2. There
are two curves in the Fig.2. At the bottom one can see a density
graph for Roman-Byzantine empire, and on the top - for England.
Note that English chronology is shifted down as the whole block
by approximately 275-year shift.
Both graphs look very similar. Both of them start with a
period of low density and then, at the same moment the density
increases very sharply. Periods of such high density have
approximately the same length and the same amplitude in both
cases. Then the sharp fall of density occurs simultaneously in
these graphs. After that both of them are approximately constant.
Their value changes mostly in a range of 1-2 reigns per decade
for remaining several hundreds years.
High density zone in English chronology is located
approximately in 445-830 A.D., and for Roman-Byzantine empire
this zone constitutes 170-550 A.D. The length is approximately
380 years in both cases. The duration of the historical periods
in England and in Roman-Byzantine empire being compared
constitutes about one and a half thousand years.
We should say once more that such specific density graphs
could not be find in other dynastic streams. It is a feature of
English and Roman-Byzantine history only.
Fig.3 compares density graphs for England and
Roman-Byzantine empire in a very rough way: only high density
zones are represented from the graphs. Fig.3 clearly shows that
the chronological shift between English and Roman-Byzantine
history is equal to approximately 275 years.
Of course, above method of comparison for two different
histories is very rough and could not be considered as a basis
for any statements. But such similarity for density graphs is
probably a reflection of the same origin of these two dynastic
streams (on a long time period). It is also possible that one of
them is a reflection of another one. Moreover, some well-known
facts from old English history could support this possibility.
For example, it is well-known that the old name of England
and English people was not "England" but "Anglia", "Angles" (from
"Angel"), maybe "Angeln" ([2], p.12-13,289). Term "Angels" as a
name of population appears in Anglo-Saxon Chronicle at a date 443
A.D. After that this term is used constantly. The first king
which was called as "king of Anglia (England)" was Athelstan
(925-940) ([7],p.340).
Note that "Angels" was also a famous noble feudal family in
Byzantine which includes Byzantine emperor dynasty of Angels
(1185-1204) ([15], p.166).
The natural question arises: may be the name "England" -
"Angels" - "Anglia" is the reflection of the name of Byzantine
dynasty Angels of 11-12th cc.?
It was only some preliminary remarks. They could only to
suggest that some connection between English and Byzantine
ancient history seem to exist. More careful analysis says that
these histories on a long time period are the same.
Remark. When we speak about a "dynasty stream" we mean simply
a sequence of kings in a certain kingdom which is ordered in
time. We do not care about family relations between these kings
(which is usually included in term "dynasty").
3.2. Dynasty parallelism between ancient and medieval England
from one side and medieval Byzantine Empire from another side.
General concept of correspondence between English and
Byzantine histories.
We have discovered that there exists a strong parallelism
between durations of reigns for English history of 640-1327 A.D.
from one side and Byzantine history of 378-830 A.D. continued by
Byzantine history of 1143-1453 A.D. from another side. This
parallelism is represented in a visual form at the bottom of
Fig.1.
More precisely, we discovered that:
1) Dynastic stream of English kings from 640 to 1040 A.D.
(400-year period) is a duplicate (reflection) of Byzantine
dynastic stream from 378 to 830 A.D. (452-year period). These two
dynastic streams coincide after 210-year chronological shift.
It means that there exists a subsequence ("dynastic stream")
of English kings whose reigns cover time interval 640-1040 and a
subsequence of Byzantine emperors whose reigns cover time
interval 378-830, such that they duplicate each other. Note that
not all kings or emperors from these epochs are included in those
dynastic streams. It is possible because often there were several
corulers (i.e., kings or emperors which ruled simultaneously).
2) The next period of English kingdom history: from 1040 to
1327 (287-year period) duplicates Byzantine dynasty history from
1143 to 1453 A.D. (310-year period). These two dynastic streams
coincide after 120-year chronological shift.
3) Dynastic stream of Byzantine emperors from 830 to 1143 also
duplicates the same English dynastic history of 1040-1327. It is
quite natural because Byzantine history has it's own duplicates
inside it. In particular, Byzantine history of 830-1143
duplicates Byzantine history of 1143-1453. For details see
[1],[24].
4) The ends of time intervals from English history
duplicating Byzantine history coincide with the break points in
English history which we pointed out earlier.
5) The ends of time intervals from Byzantine history
duplicating English history also prove to be certain natural
break points in Byzantine history. They generate a partition of
the whole Byzantine history into 4 parts which we will denote by
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1, Byzantine empire-2 and
Byzantine empire-3.
3.3. Some details of dynastic parallelism ("parallelism table")
3.3.1. English history of 640-830 A.D. and
Byzantine history of 378-553 A.D.
275-year shift.
We used J.Blair's Tables [2] as the first main source of
chronological information and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the second
one. Below we use an abbreviation ASC for Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Note that sometimes different chronological tables contain a
slightly different data, but these differences do not influence
the parallelism which we are going to present here.
_________________________________________________________________
English history Byzantine history
_________________________________________________________________
English history of 640-830. Byzantine history of 378-553.
Wessex kings - one of the six Byzantine emperors dynasty
kingdoms in England of 400-830. starting from the foundation of
This dynastic stream is a part New Rome = Constantinople.
of the dense sequence of kings This dynastic stream is a part
whose reigns cover the time of the dense sequence of kings
axis with high multiplicity. whose reigns cover the time
See Figs.2,3. axis with high multiplicity.
This period of Byzantine history
is denoted as Byzantine-0 on Fig.1.
See Figs.2,3.
__________________________________________________________________
Commentary. Durations of reigns are shown in brackets
(rounded off to whole years). In the left column the whole list
of English kings is presented. In the right column almost all
Byzantine emperors appear. Only absent are names of some emperors
with very short reign and co-emperors of those ones who are
presented here. Note that all English kings (with only few
exceptions of very short reigns) are included in this
parallelism.
__________________________________________________________________
1. Cenwalch 643-672 king of 1. Theodosius I The Great
Wessex and 643-647 as the king 378 or 379 - 395 (16)
of Sussex. He ruled 29 or 25
years, if we consider only his
rule in Wessex (after 647 A.D.)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Queen Seaxburh 672-674 (2), ?
wife of K.Cenwel. Short rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Cens 674-686 (12) according 2. Arcadius 395-408 (13)
to Blair. In Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle we see here two kings:
Escwine + Centwine (9 years in
total)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Caedwalla 686-688 (2). ?
Short rule
------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Ine 686-727 (39) according 3. Theodosius II 408-450 (42)
to Blair and (37) according to
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (= ASC)
------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Aethelheard 727-740 (13), 4. Leo I 457-474 (17)
and (14) according to ASC
------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Cuthread 740-754 (14) accor- 5. Zeno 474-491 (17)
ding to Blair and (17) in ASC (he ruled two times)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Sigeberht 754 (1). Short rule ?
------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Cynewulf 754-784 (30) accor- 6. Anastasius
ding to Blair and (31) in ASC 491-518 (27)
------------------------------------------------------------------
7. Beorhtric 784-800 (16) 7. Justin I 518-527 (9)
------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Egbert 800-838 (38). In 828 8. Justinian I The Great. In
A.D.(i.e., at the 28th year of 553 A.D.(i.e. at the 26th year
his rule) he consolidated all of his rule) he defeated the
six kingdoms into one - Anglia. Goths (this is well-known Gothic
The last 10 years he ruled as war) and became unique emperor
the king of Anglia. He is consi- in Roman-Byzantine empire. He
dered as distinguished king in ruled during his last 12 years
English history without any corulers. Well-known
emperor in Byzantine history
________________________________________________________________
3.3.2. English history of 830-1040 and
Byzantine history of 553-830. Rigid 275-year shift.
__________________________________________________________________
English epoch of 830-1040. Byzantine epoch of 553-830.
Anglia after consolidation into Is denoted as "Byzantine
one kingdom (see Blair [6]). empire-1" in the Fig.1.
__________________________________________________________________
9. Aethelberht 860-866 (6) 9. Justin II 565-578 (13)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
10. Aethelbald 10. Tiberius Constantinus
857-860 (3) 578-582 (4)
------------------------------------------------------------------
11. Aethelwulf 838-857 (19) 11. Maurice 582-602 (20)
------------------------------------------------------------------
12. Aethelred 866-872 (6) 12. Phocas 602-610 (8)
------------------------------------------------------------------
Here the old English chroniclers transposed two kings, namely -
the kings Aethelwulf (see No.11) and Aethelberht (see No.9) were
placed in another order (their Byzantine originals are Justin II
and Maurice). This confusion has a simple explanation: all four
English kings of this period have very similar names beginning
from "Aethel".
------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Alfred The Great 872-900 (28) 13. Heraclius
according to Blair and 871-901 610-641 (31)
(30) according to Bemont and
Monod ([7],p.340)
------------------------------------------------------------------
14. Edward the Elder 14. Constans II
900-925 (25) Pogonatus 641-668 (26)
------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Athelstan 925-941 (16). 15. Constantine IV
It is supposed today that he was 668-685 (17)
the first who took the name king
of Anglia ([7],p.340)
------------------------------------------------------------------
16. Confusion: the war with 16. Well-known confusion in
Northumbria. The Anglo-Saxon Byzantine history in the end of
Chronicle mentions about 7th century - beginning of 8th
three main kings of this period: century. Here there are several
Edmund I 941-948 (7), emperors with a short rules:
Eadred 948-955 (7), Leontius II 695-698
Eadwig 955-959 (4). All these or 694-697, Tiberius III 697-704
kings ruled relatively short or 698-705, Justinian II 705-711,
period Philippicus Bardanes 711-713,
Anastasius II 713-715 or 716,
Theodosius III 715 or 716-717
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, both confusion epochs (English and Byzantine) are matched
under the rigid chronological shift. We did not discuss here the
details because of mess structure of the chronicles of this time
period
------------------------------------------------------------------
17. Edgar 959-975 (16)+ Edward 17. Leo III Isaurian or
"The Martyr" 975-978 (3), and the Syrian 717-741 (24)
totally (after summation) they
give 19 years. Their names are
similar and consequently their
union is natural
------------------------------------------------------------------
18. Aethelred II "The Unready" 18. Constantine V Copronimus
978-1013 (35) 741-775 (34)
------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Cnut The Great Danish 19. Constantine VI Porphyrogenitus
1017-1036 (19). His death 780-797 (17). Let us note that
indicates the disintegration now we are in the end of historical
of Danish empire. Thus, this epoch which was marked out in
epoch is finished by the well- [1] and [24] as Byzantine empire-1
known event in the history of (527-840). Thus, in this column
Anglia. Let us note that this of our table we came to some
fragment of English history is important turning-point in
matched with Byzantine epoch Byzantine history
under 210 (or 275)-year shift
(approximately)
_________________________________________________________________
The old English chronicles placed in the end of this epoch
(in history of Anglia) two "short" kings:
Harold I Danish (1036-1039, ruled 3 years) and
Harthacnut (1039-1041, ruled 2 years).
We did not find the Byzantine duplicate-original for Harthacnut,
but the original-duplicate for Harold I will be demonstrated below
__________________________________________________________________
We continue the motion along English history in the left
column of the table. The parallel with Byzantine history will
continue (in the right column). But this parallel becomes more
clear and evident if we take the next epoch "Byzantine empire-3"
(1143-1453) instead of the epoch "Byzantine empire-2" (Fig.1). As
we explained before, these two epochs of Byzantine history are
parallel, i.e. they are duplicates (of course, not identical).
Consequently, we will list in the right column of the table the
emperors from "Byzantine empire-3" and also will indicate here
their duplicates from "Byzantine empire-2". And we will see that
the parallelism between English and Byzantine history will
continue until the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
__________________________________________________________________
3.3.3. English history of 1040-1327 and
Byzantine history of 1143-1453. Rigid 120-year shift.
__________________________________________________________________
English epoch of 1040-1327 Byzantine epoch of 1143-1453.
Is marked as "Byzantine empire-3"
in the Fig.1. It is the original
for "Byzantine empire-2"
__________________________________________________________________
20. Edward "The Confessor" 20. Manuel I Comnenus
1041-1066 (25) 1143-1180 (37)
------------------------------------------------------------------
The death of Edward "The Confes- After the death of Manuel I the
sor" indicates the beginning of hard time for Byzantine empire
Norman invasion. It is possible, began and the turning-point is
that English chronicles mean the well-known crusade and the
here in reality "Roman invasion" conquest of Constantinople in
because there is the parallel 1204. It is supposed today that
between some periods of Roman Italian Rome organized the
history and Norman history invasion in Byzantine empire
(see [1],[24])
------------------------------------------------------------------
The commentary to the dynastic stream of English history.
After the death of Edward "The Confessor" a new king Harold II
"Godwinson" took the throne. He ruled only 1 year and was killed
in 1066 in the battle near Hastings. From the other hand it is
known ([7],p.343) that in reality he got a great political power
in 1054 when Edward was alive. But the English chronicles placed
just before the rule of Edward "The Confessor" one more "short"
(i.e. with a short rule) Harold, namely Harold I "Harefoot"
(1036-1039) who ruled only 3 years. It is possible that this
Harold I is simply the reflection of Harold II
------------------------------------------------------------------
21. "Doubled Harold", i.e. 21. Isaac II Angelus 1185-1195,
Harold I Danish (1036-1039) and then he lost the power and
then Harold II (1066 year). appeared on Byzantine throne
Harold II ruled only 9 months. again in 1203 (second time). He
It is clear that this "doubled ruled no more than 1 year and
Harold" is the reflection of finally lost the power in 1204,
Byzantine"doubled Isaac Angelus", after the conquest of Constanti-
who ruled two times. His second nople by crusaders. Thus, his
rule was short: less than 1 year second rule was no more than 1
year
------------------------------------------------------------------
Norman conquest of Anglia. The The conquest of Byzantine empire
famous battle near Hastings in by crusaders. Famous fourth
1066 crusade 1199-1204
------------------------------------------------------------------
We will speak later and more detailed about the parallel between
these events
------------------------------------------------------------------
22. William I of Normandy 22. Theodore I Lascaris
(Bastard) The Conqueror 1066- 1204-1222 (18). In 1204 a new
-1087 (21). His rule starts the Nicaean empire starts on the
new Norman dynasty in Anglia territory of Byzantine empire. The
reflection of Theodore in Byzantine
empire-2 is Basil I the Macedonian
867-887 (19)
------------------------------------------------------------------
23. William II "Rufus" 1087-1101 23. Possibly, there is some mess
(14). Thus, here we have 14 in the chronicles when they describe
years and in the right column the Norman dynasty and Nicaean
we have 11 or 12 years. We see empire. The first conjecture:
here some confusion in the the original preimage for William II
chronicles because in the right is lost. Second conjecture: this is
column Isaac II Angelus ruled again Isaac II Angelus. But in this
twice case the chronicle took the whole
his rule: 1185-1195 and then 1203-
-1204, i.e. totally 11 or 12 years.
------------------------------------------------------------------
24. Henry I 1101-1135 24. John III Vatatzes
(34 or 35 years) 1222-1254 or 1256 (32). His
reflection in Byzantine empire-2
is Leo VI "The Philosopher"
886-912 (26)
------------------------------------------------------------------
25. Stephen of Blois 1135-1154 25. Michael VIII 1259 or 1260
(19). King Stephen finishes the until 1282 or 1283 (23). His
Norman dynasty in Anglia ([7],p. reflection in Byzantine empire-2
357). The next king Henry II is Romanus I 919-945 (26).
starts a new Anjou dynasty in Michael VIII starts a new
Anglia Palaeologus dynasty which lasts
from 1261 until 1453
------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus the rigid chronological shift matches
English Norman dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Angelus
and then matches
the next Anjou dynasty with Byzantine dynasty of Palaeologus
------------------------------------------------------------------
26. Henry II Plantagenet 26. Andronicus II Palaeologus
1154-1189 (35). Note that both 1282 or 1283 - 1328 (46). If
terms Plantagenet and calculated from 1283 to 1320 -
Porphyrogenetus have the same the moment when his co-ruler
meaning: "one who was born in Andronicus III began to reign
a shirt". This term has well- then duration of Andronicus II
known meaning - see commentary reign is 37 years. He was
below reflected as Constantine VII
910 or 912 - 959 (47),(49)
in Byzantine empire-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Commentary.
Term (name) "Porphyrogenetus" = "Porphyro" + "Genitus" could be
interpreted as "one, who was born in porphyr". It says about
birth in a "royal attributes", maybe "royal clothes", "royal
shirt". It suggests a rare case from medical practice when a baby
is born "in a shirt", i.e. still in placenta (placenta sounds
similar to "planta" - part of "Plantagenet"). In old times such
cases were considered as a sign of outstanding future for the
baby (good or bad one). We see in English version (left column) a
name Plantagenet, i.e. Planta + Genet. It means exactly "birth in
a planta, in a cover" - the same as "birth in a shirt"
------------------------------------------------------------------
27. Henry II established a known 27. Michael VIII. He was just
dynasty of Plantagenets (House before Andronicus II. He
of Plantagenet) in English established a known dynasty of
history. This dynasty was Palaeologus in the history of
finished in 1329 with Richard Byzantine. This dynasty covers
II. So, this dynasty covers time time interval 1261-1453 (up to
interval 1154-1399 ([27], p.346). the siege of Constantinople)
([27], p.636).
------------------------------------------------------------------
So, the chronological shift which we discovered puts together two
dynasties: Palaeologus' and Plantagenets. Dynasty of Palaeologus'
is finished in 1453 and reflecting them Plantagenets continue up
to 1399.
------------------------------------------------------------------
28. Richard I Coeur de Lion 28. Andronicus III Palaeologus
1189-1199 (10). Duration of 1320-1328-1341. Formally his
his reign is 10 years which reign lasts 21 years (1320-1341),
is close to 13 years - duration but his reign as unique emperor
of reign of his analog (without corulers) was only for
(original) in Byzantine 13 years (1328-1341). In 1328
empire finished the reign of his coruler
- emperor Andronicus II.
------------------------------------------------------------------
29.John Santer 1199-1216 (17) 29. John VI Cantacuzenus
1341 or 1347 - 1355 (15)
------------------------------------------------------------------
30. Henry III 1216-1272 (56). 30. John V Palaeologus 1341-1391
Henry III was the last king in (50). His has a reflection in
Anjou dynasty in England. Byzantine empire-2: Basil II
Dynasty of Palaeologus in Bulgaroktonos (975 or 976 -
Byzantine empire (right column) 1025). Basil II Bulgaroktonos'
is not finished at this point reign was for 49 or 50 years.
but it is near to the end
------------------------------------------------------------------
31. Edward I 1272-1307 (35) 31. Manuel II Palaeologus
1391-1425 (33 or 34).
------------------------------------------------------------------
32. Edward II Caervarven 32. John VIII Palaeologus
1307-1327 (20) 1424-1448 (23 or 24).
------------------------------------------------------------------
End of parallelism. In 1453 Constantinople was seized
by Turks and Byzantine Empire
changed to Turkey.
___________________________________________________________________
Fig.4 illustrates this parallelism. It is important that
durations of reign fit each other so well in the case when the
same chronological shift was applied to all reigns. All dynasty
was shifted as a whole, it's internal time was unchanged.
Fig.5 shows the same parallelism in a different form which is
designed for visual comparison of durations of reign in both
dynasties. For quantitative comparison we used numerical
characteristic of a distance between two arbitrary dynasties,
which was introduced in [1],[24]. It appears that this "distance"
drops into a range of values which are normal only for strongly
dependent dynasties (details about this numerical characteristic
one can find in [1],[24]). Recall that two dynasties are called as
dependent ones if they both reflect the same real dynasty.
Dependence of these two dynasties (we mean statistical
dependence of reign durations) is the main result of this paper.
It is in fact a formal result and we might finish on it. But many
not formal questions follow after this result is claimed. Main of
them is: what real events lay under both of these two dynasties?
What was the real history?
4. CORRECT ENGLISH HISTORY IS MORE SHORT IN TIME BUT MUCH MORE
DENSE IN EVENTS THAN IT IS SUGGESTED BY TEXTBOOKS
4.1. Our new concept of English history
The answer follows definitely from the above parallelism and
from the Fig.1. Naturally, the more new dynasty (one which was
later in time) is to be supposed as original one. This is a
Byzantine dynasty 1143-1453 A.D. It was denoted above as
Byzantine empire-3. In [1],[24] it was discovered that Byzantine
empire-3 is a source of information for it's reflections
Byzantine empire-0, Byzantine empire-1 and Byzantine empire-2.
Roughly speaking the whole Byzantine history is constructed from
several blocks - duplicates of the same epoch: 1143-1453 A.D. As
we discovered, English history being stringed to the English
kings dynasty is a duplicate of Byzantine history up to 1327 A.D.
(in English chronology) = 1450 A.D. (in Byzantine chronology).
Middle of 15th century was a time from which we have enough
information, so Byzantine dynasty of that time was surely a real
one. It suggests that Byzantine is an original in above
parallelism, and England before 1327 A.D. - a reflection. It
could be seen from the Fig.1 how English history before 1327 A.D.
was constructed from several reflections of Byzantine Empire of
1143-1453 A.D.
As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.
1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that
time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks
more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved
in [1],[24] that Roman history of that time reflects real events
from 9-13th cc. A.D.
2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and
Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real
events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.
3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th
cc. in Byzantine empire.
4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about
English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine
empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in
Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name
of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)
5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and
medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are
thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch
before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to
certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly
speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine
chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then
modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in
England.
6) The time when written history of the island which is today
called as England really begins is most probably the epoch of
9-10th centuries. Now we have only very few information about
that early period of English history on the island. So the
description of English history of 9-13 cc. is in fact rather
fragmentary. But this information about real island events was
then "covered" by chronicles brought from Byzantine empire. The
resulting sum of two fibers: "island fiber" and "Byzantine fiber"
we can see now as the English history of 9-13th cc.
7) Starting from 14th century English history speaks about
real events in England only. Roughly speaking, traditional
version of English history becomes correct from 14th c.
8) One might ask: "If you are right, how to explain the fact
that in ancient English chronicles there are chronological
details about, for example, how many years there were between the
Flood and a certain event of English history? These chronological
details often agree with Scaliger's (modern) chronological
concept." The answer is follows.
At first, note that chronological and astronomical data from
ancient chronicles in many cases strongly contradict with modern
historical version. See [1],[24].
In the second, even if we see that a direct chronological
statement from ancient text agrees well with modern tradition, it
says really nothing, because all ancient chronicles which we have
today, were finally edited only in 15-17th cc. And it was exactly
the time when modern chronological concept was worked out (in
general). Such direct chronological statements are simply the
traces of chronological computations of 15-17th cc. At that time
historians "calculated" the dates of ancient events and then
placed (for reader's convenience) the results of their
(medieval!) calculations inside ancient historical texts. The
fact that chronological statements in different ancient texts
often agree means that today we have mostly the results of work
of only one medieval chronological school. It was the
chronological school which work was supervised in 15-17th cc. by
Roman-Catholic church.
Often, astronomical calculations were used for chronological
purposes. In this case there could be certain astrological
motivations in medieval astronomical calculations for chronology.
Medieval scientists, and historians among them, often trusted
astrology and could use it in their considerations. Maybe
medieval astrologers tried to solve problems like these: what was
the planetary configuration at the moment of coronation of
Justinian I (or when ancient lunar eclipses occurred etc.)?
Results of such astronomical calculations of 15-16th cc. could
be placed in ancient texts to make their chronology more clear.
It was large work and it might be very useful if the calculations
were correct. Unfortunately, medieval astronomers and historians
made a lot of mistakes. These mistakes are discussed in [1],[24].
As a result of such mistakes, ancient chronicles got an incorrect
chronological skeleton. This incorrect chronology was then
supported by church authorities and by medieval scientific
schools. It was the chronology which we have now in our
textbooks. And today, our contemporaries - the historians and
chronologists - take the ancient chronicles (from archives) and
with pleasure discover in them the "astronomical and
chronological information". Then, basing on the modern theory,
they date the described eclipses, horoscopes (i.e., the
configuration of the planets along the zodiacal constellations).
After this, historians discover (with great pleasure) that
sometimes these records from "ancient chronicles" satisfy to the
Scaliger's chronology (and, consequently, are correct). Of
course, sometimes there are some contradictions. And sometimes -
very serious. The real explanation is as follows: the medieval
methods for calculations were more rough that modern ones. Then
in each such case the modern chronologists "correct" these
"records of ancient chronicler". As a result, they form the
illusion of the correctness of traditional Scaliger's version of
ancient chronology. But what the modern historians really do when
the results of modern astronomical calculations sharply disagree
with Scaliger's chronology? As we know today (see, for example,
[1],[24]) the list of such contradictions is very long. This fact
shows that Scaliger's chronological version is wrong. But in all
such cases the modern historians start to speak (with a great
irritation and displeasure) about "ignorance of ancient observers
and chroniclers", about "impossibility to apply the modern
scientific methods to the analysis an ancient texts" etc.
The visual picture of our chronological conjecture you can
see in the Fig.6.
4.2. In which way the Byzantine chronicles were inserted
into medieval English history (of the island Anglia)?
The answer will be extremely simple if we will erase from
our minds the picture which is imposed by traditional Scaliger's
chronology.
Starting from 11th century, several crusades storm the
Byzantine empire. Several feudal crusaders' states
were founded on the territory of Byzantine empire in 11-14th cc.
In these states many nations were mixed: local population, the
crusaders from England, France, Germany, Italy etc. In these
crusaders' regions and in Byzantine empire the new culture was
created, in particular, were written a historical chronicles.
Among Byzantine inhabitants were a lot of people from Europe, in
particular, from some island, which later will be called England.
In 1453 A.D. Turks conquered Constantinople. Byzantine
empire was ruined and the crowds of its inhabitants leaved the
country. Many of them returned in the Europe, in their old
homeland. In particular, - in the island Anglia. These
descendants of crusaders took with them their Byzantine
historical chronicle, because these texts describe their own real
history in Byzantine empire (during many years - one or two
hundreds years). Several decades passed. On the island Anglia
starts the writing its history (i.e., the history of the people
living on the island). In 16-17th centuries some qualified
historians appear and start to create the general history of the
whole land Anglia ("from the beginning"). They search for ancient
documents. Suddenly they find several old trunks with "very old"
documents. The documents are dusty, the paper is very fragile,
and the old books fall to pieces. These chronicles were
transported from Byzantine empire. But now (in 16-17th cc.)
nobody knew this. Unfortunately, the prehistory of these trunks
is forgotten. And, unfortunately, is forgotten that these
chronicles describe the history of ANOTHER LAND. The English
historians of 16-17th centuries carefully analyse these texts as
the history "of island England" and put them into the basis of
"old British-island history, which started many centuries ago".
In some strong sense they were right because really the authors
of the chronicles were closely connected with island Anglia (but,
let us repeat, described ANOTHER LAND - Byzantine empire).
This process is quite natural and does not suggest any
special falsification of the history. Such natural errors were
inevitable at the first steps of creating of the general history.
As a result, appeared such chronicles as Anglo-Saxon
Chronicle, the Nennius' chronicle etc. After some time this wrong
version of an old English history stand stockstill, becomes a
"monument". Further historians simply modify (only a little) the
initial scheme of the history, add some new documents. And only
today, using some statistical and other methods we start to
discover some strange regularities inside the "history textbook"
and start to realize that the real history was possibly
sufficiently shorter and that today we need to remove from the
"old English history" its "Byzantine part" and return this piece
to its right place (in time and in the geographical sense).
This procedure is very painful. We realize this because we
discovered the same problem in the old Russian history, when we
also found several chronological duplicates.
General remark. It is possible, that this process of
"insertion of an old Byzantine chronicles" in the beginning of a
"local history" is presented for several different regions which
were closely connected with Byzantine empire. In particular, it
is true for Russia, for England, for Rome, for Greece.
5. OLD ENGLISH CHRONICLES AS ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS WHICH SPEAK
ABOUT REAL EVENTS OF 10-13th CENTURIES
5.1. Roman consul Brutus - the first who conquered
Britain (and the first king of Britts)
We have analyzed above the durations of rules and suggested
the conjecture that old English history is "a chronological
reflection" if one period of real Byzantine history. The
following question immediately arises: what about old English
chronicles - do they confirm this conjecture? - or there are some
contradictions? Let us take these chronicles and let us read them
once more by "fresh sight", without a priori "school" hypothesis
about "great antiquity" of these sources.
Now we recall to the reader well-known facts from
traditional history of England (Anglia in old texts). Let us
take, for example
"Historia Brittonum" of Nennius,
"Historia Britonum" of Galfridus Monemutensis
and Anglo-Saxon Chronicle.
Galfridus calls Brutus as FIRST king of Britts ([9],p.5). In
brief, the story of conquest of Britain is as follows. After the
end of the Trojan War and after the fall of Troy, the Trojan hero
Aeneas arrived on the ship in Italy. After two or three
generation his great-grandson Brutus was born ([9],p.6-7). By the
way, Nennius thinks that "time distance" between Aeneas and Brutus
is sufficiently more ([8],p.173). He states that "the distance"
between Trojan war and Brutus is about several hundreds years.
However, this difference is not so important for us.
Then Brutus leaved Italy and arrived it Greece, where
becomes the leader of Trojans survived after war. Brutus collects
the large fleet and then his army (on the fleet) leaves Greece.
After some time they landed on some "island", began the battle
with local people, won the war and founded the new kingdom.
This is Britain.
Brutus is the first in the row of rulers in ancient Britain.
Today they are considered as legendary heroes, because, according
to traditional chronology, these events were "in a deep past"
(before Jesus Christ).
Nennius tells the analogous story of Brutus (but more
short). Nennius definitely states that Brutus "arrived on the
island, which was called by HIS NAME, i.e., on the island
Britain, then populated the island by his posterity and lived
there. From this day and before now the Britain is populated"
([8],p.173). Thus, the Britain was called by the name of Brutus.
Then Nennius informs us about opinion of some other authors,
that "island Britain was called by the name of Britt, son of
Isicion, who was the son of Alan" ([8],p.172). But according to
the most widespread and authoritative version (which is quoted by
Nennius) Britain was called "by the name of Brutus, who was ROMAN
CONSUL (! - Auth.)" ([8],p.172). Thus, Brutus - the first king of
Britain was Roman consul.
This statement is extremely strange and impossible from the
point of view traditional Scaliger's chronology, because Rome was
founded only about 753 B.C. and consequently in the epoch of this
Brutus there are no "Roman consuls" and even no Rome!
Anglo-Saxon Chronicle states that:
"The first inhabitants of this land were the Britons, who
came from ARMENIA (!-Authors)..." ([2],p.3).
It is quite clear that here the name Armenia points out on
the Romania, i.e. on the Roman-Byzantine empire, which was called
Romai-Romania. Thus, as we see, the English chronicle again
connects Britain and Roman-Byzantine empire.
Of course, today this statement of old chronicle is declared
by historians as erroneous. The modern commentary is as follows:
"instead of erroneous name Armenia one should read Armorica =
Brittany" ([2],p.3). However, the replacement of Armenia by
Armorica does not help to traditional history: the name Armorica
also can be connected with the name of Roman-Byzantine empire.
Our conclusion does not change.
Thus, old English chronicles state that Britain was at first
conquered by Roman consul Brutus, who arrived there with a
military fleet and founded the British kingdom. He became the
first king of an island Britain.
5.2. Consul Brutus of English chronicles - was he a
contemporary of Julius Caesar?
It seems that the answer is quite clear.
We need only to understand - when lived this remarkable
Roman consul (according to traditional chronology)? It is very
simple. The qualified reader already prompts to us the right
answer: it was 1st century B.C. In this century we see (in modern
textbook in ancient history) the well-known Roman consul Brutus -
the friend and brother-in-arms of Julius Caesar. Brutus took
part in many campaigns of Julius Caesar. Then Brutus betrayed
Caesar - his patron and protector. We remember from our "scholar
childhood" the bitter words of Caesar: "And you, Brutus", which
Caesar said when Brutus struck him by the sword.
As we also known, the traitorous murder of Caesar - one of
the most important episode in "biography" of ancient Roman consul
Brutus. It is remarkable, but the old English chronicles also
speak about this episode but in a slightly different words. They
state that Brutus (the first Britts' king) killed his farther.
This murder is considered by chronicles as accidental,
unintentional. Allegedly, Brutus shot an arrow and accidentally
killed "his farther" ([8],p.173). In our opinion, this is
slightly distorted Roman story about murder of Julius Caesar by
Brutus. Here "farther" is Caesar - former friend and protector of
Brutus.
Because of this terrible murder, the people expel Brutus
from his native land. It was done in both stories: in Roman and
in English. Brutus started on a journey.
Our simple and natural conjecture is as follows: in the old
English story about conquest of Britain acts Brutus - the
contemporary of Julius Caesar. As we saw, this conjecture is
supported by ancient documents, although they do not call
directly Brutus as friend or enemy of Caesar. Indeed, all
chronicles state that AT FIRST Britain was conquered by Julius
Caesar. Some interesting details are reported. Namely, Caesar
arrived in Britain with Roman military fleet which consisted of
about 80 ships ([2],p.5). But the conquest of the land became a
complicated problem and soon Caesar returned in Britain with the
fleet consisting of 600 (!) ships. After the battle the local
army of natives were defeated and Romans founded the new kingdom.
Moreover, Nennius claims that Julius Caesar WAS THE FIRST ROMAN
who arrived on the island Britain and conquered the kingdom and
Britts ([8],p.176).
Thus, if Brutus WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain, and
if Julius Caesar also WAS THE FIRST ROMAN arrived in Britain,
then BRUTUS and JULIUS CAESAR are simply CONTEMPORARIES and
brothers-in-arms. This conclusion evidently follows from old
English chronicles.
Let us resume these corollaries in the form of some table.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brutus - the first king of Britts Julius Caesar
-----------------------------------------------------------------
1. The first Roman arrived on 1. The first Roman arrived on
the island, conquered the land the island, conquered the
and founded the kingdom country and also founded the
kingdom
2. Arrived in Britain with great 2. Was the head of great military
military fleet fleet which invaded into the land
3. "Accidentally" killed his 3. His contemporary - Roman Brutus,
farther by arrow Caesar's friend, traitorously
killed Caesar (= "his farther-
-protector")
4. The murder of Brutus' father 4. Well-known story: the murder
by his son was predicted in of Julius Caesar was predicted
advance by prophet (see Nennius, by Roman prophet (see, for
[8],p.173) example, Plutarch
5. Afterwards Brutus was expelled 5. Romans expelled Brutus as great
from his native land (as the men traitor, because he killed Julius
who committed the murder) Caesar
6. Roman consul Brutus starts 6. Julius Caesar lived (according
the history of Britain traditional chronology) in 1st c.
B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, from the position of common sense we immediately date
the epoch of the first Brutus' conquest of Britain (with his
contemporary Julius Caesar) by 1st century A.D. Let us note, that
this our statement is not new in reality. All experts know that
Caesar conquered the Britain in 1st century A.D. All experts know
that Brutus was the first who conquered Britain. We simply
combine these two facts and formulate the evident conclusion:
"Ancient" Roman consul Brutus - the "farther" of all Britts,
the first king of Britain, the "starting person" of the whole
English history - is a c