You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #56: What I mean is that he doesn't even understand the 'conventional' history [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
muriel_volestrangler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Dec-20-04 08:43 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. What I mean is that he doesn't even understand the 'conventional' history
so his analysis of it is rubbish.

Here's some descriptions, and links where stuff is available on the Internet, to early English tax records.

http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/guide/feu.shtml

"it was assumed that "written" English history starts from 60 B.C. when Julius Caesar conquered the British islands"

No. Julius Caesar invaded Britain twice, in 55 and 54 BC; on both occasions he withdreaw before the end of the year. Britain was conquered by Claudius (though not personally) in 43 AD.
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.


Rubbish. The Anglo-Saxon kingdoms developed gradually, and merged and fell at different times; Brittany is not Britain, though the words derive from the same root; he has left out East Anglia and Northumberland, from the major kingdoms, though these had divisions at times too.

Look at his 'parallelism tables' for English 640-830 (rounded down):

English reigns Byzantine
29 16
2 13
12 42
2 7
39 17
13 0 (Leo II, who he misses out)
14 17
0 27
30 9
16 38
38

See? Those are more like random numbers than anything. He has to insert blanks, and miss out 1 emperor, to try and get them to match - and that still relies on "16=9" etc.

These dynasties do not 'duplicate' each other; his theory, and math, is bunk. Fomenko has either lost his mind, or is a con artist trying to sell a book, like von Daniken.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC