New concept of the english history

[Commy]

What do you think about this?

 

[warpus]

the Great Britain Empire is a direct successor of medieval Byzantine Empire

The opening paragraph doesn't really explain very well how this can possibly be true and I'm not about to read the whole thing.

It also isn't written very well Too many gramatical errors to take the thesis seriously.

 

[Verbose]

These are the Russian historians attempting to argue that western Europe has no ancient history. It's all just a huge conspiracy to appropriate Russian history. The Greeks and the Romans never existed. The Roman Empire wasn't re-invented in the Middle Ages with Charlemagne, it was downright invented...

Bit unclear what the purpose of the exercise is. Unless it's just one humungous historical one-upmanship pissing-contest. Which is pretty pointless. Some people in Russia must have waaay to much time on their hands.

 

[Plotinus]

It looks absolute rubbish - appallingly written and hopelessly naive in its treatment of ancient sources. For example -

Trained reader expects that the whole this story of
Galfridus (about origin of London's name) the modern historical
science claims as wrong and erroneous:

Well, trained reader's expectation is correct, and so is the modern historical science. The "Brutus" who supposedly founded London is about as historical as Romulus and Remus. The name "London" has obscure Celtic roots and doesn't mean "Latin town".

 

[bob bobato]

I didn't read the whole thing, but the 'parralells' between the Byzantine and British dynasties... It semed to me like three points on a map that miraculously make a triangle.. a patern that isn't really there, or is completely coincidental.

 

[Tee Kay]

You can say the Russian or the Austrian or the Ottoman Empire are successors of the Byzantines on even more credible grounds.

 

[ParkCungHee]

You can say the Russian or the Austrian or the Ottoman Empire are successors of the Byzantines on even more credible grounds.

Third Rome?

 

[luiz]

What a bunch of crap. And poorly written too.

 

[MCdread]

What a bunch of crap. And poorly written too.

Yeah, but the point to those that commented above and didn't read a thing of it is not that Britain is descendant of Rome/Byzantium. It is that the chronicles that tell the history of Britain pre-High Middle Ages were modeled/copied/adapted from roman and byzantine chronicles and therefore aren't real History, ie, early history of Britain is just Byzantine history with a 200 years shift or so. Actually, at some point he seems to argue that early medieval byzantine history is a mirror of late medieval one and therefore it may also be a posterior fiction...

It does raise an interesting point though: how much weight should we put on ancient texts, poems and chronicles that allegedly tell the history of a certain region or dynasty when we don't have any other comparative source. For example, using this example, the mythical history of pre-Roman or pre-medieval Britain that tells of Trojan diaspora, Brutus as descendant of Aeneas and so on is obviously historical rubbish. But it is so because we know better. If we had completely lost all classical records at some point, didn't know where that legendary Troy and Greece were and the oldest written documents we had anywhere in the world was those of Geoffrey of Monmouth, maybe we'd give it a bit more credit and tried to interpret linguistic hints and archaeological findings into some sort of revised form of that text.

 

[ulsterman88]

That was a pathetic argument in my view.

 

[luiz]

Yeah, but the point to those that commented above and didn't read a thing of it is not that Britain is descendant of Rome/Byzantium. It is that the chronicles that tell the history of Britain pre-High Middle Ages were modeled/copied/adapted from roman and byzantine chronicles and therefore aren't real History, ie, early history of Britain is just Byzantine history with a 200 years shift or so. Actually, at some point he seems to argue that early medieval byzantine history is a mirror of late medieval one and therefore it may also be a posterior fiction...

It does raise an interesting point though: how much weight should we put on ancient texts, poems and chronicles that allegedly tell the history of a certain region or dynasty when we don't have any other comparative source. For example, using this example, the mythical history of pre-Roman or pre-medieval Britain that tells of Trojan diaspora, Brutus as descendant of Aeneas and so on is obviously historical rubbish. But it is so because we know better. If we had completely lost all classical records at some point, didn't know where that legendary Troy and Greece were and the oldest written documents we had anywhere in the world was those of Geoffrey of Monmouth, maybe we'd give it a bit more credit and tried to interpret linguistic hints and archaeological findings into some sort of revised form of that text.

I admit that I only read about 25% of the text. But it was so poorly written, and so politicised that it really didn't seem worthy of time.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Yeah, but the point to those that commented above and didn't read a thing of it is not that Britain is descendant of Rome/Byzantium. It is that the chronicles that tell the history of Britain pre-High Middle Ages were modeled/copied/adapted from roman and byzantine chronicles and therefore aren't real History, ie, early history of Britain is just Byzantine history with a 200 years shift or so. Actually, at some point he seems to argue that early medieval byzantine history is a mirror of late medieval one and therefore it may also be a posterior fiction...

The abstract does make the claim that because the histories are supposedly similar, they must be the one and the same, and therefore Britain is indeed a successor to the Byzantines... Everyone knows that having the same written history implies actual connection (not!).

The "proof" uses a very, very, weak parallelism. He lines up a bunch of English kings with Byzantine emperors to show that the realms and length of rule are similar, within 16 years difference in every case lined up, less than 10 years in most cases... of course, with many more english kings and queens in the list, when there are places where a person is listed as ruler who has no counterpart, so he or she is placed in the list with a question mark on the Byzantine side... especially the short-time rulers. Pick the right kings and we get exactly the same time frame. Yay.

Gee, look how strictly close they line up (once again, NOT!). I now feel like I wasted my time reading this treatise . (Had a suspicion that would happen after I got through the abstract, so I blame myself.)

 

[budweiser]

Well, I dont think the romans just packed up and left britain. They were there for hundreds of years, marrying, intermingling. There must be some roman roots still there. More than we think, I bet.

 

[sabo]

So if the U.S. is a direct result of the U.K. and the U.K. is descendent from the Byzantiums, does that mean that America is here because of the the Byzantenes?

 

[aronnax]

I did not get past the content page......

 

[Verbose]

So if the U.S. is a direct result of the U.K. and the U.K. is descendent from the Byzantiums, does that mean that America is here because of the the Byzantenes?

The point of the authors is pretty much that Orthodox, slavic eastern Europe (in particular Russia) created western civilisation, since there never where any Greeks or Romans.

 

[MCdread]

The abstract does make the claim that because the histories are supposedly similar, they must be the one and the same, and therefore Britain is indeed a successor to the Byzantines... Everyone knows that having the same written history implies actual connection (not!).

The "proof" uses a very, very, weak parallelism. He lines up a bunch of English kings with Byzantine emperors to show that the realms and length of rule are similar, within 16 years difference in every case lined up, less than 10 years in most cases... of course, with many more english kings and queens in the list, when there are places where a person is listed as ruler who has no counterpart, so he or she is placed in the list with a question mark on the Byzantine side... especially the short-time rulers. Pick the right kings and we get exactly the same time frame. Yay.

Gee, look how strictly close they line up (once again, NOT!). I now feel like I wasted my time reading this treatise . (Had a suspicion that would happen after I got through the abstract, so I blame myself.)

I agree with your points and with the general sentiment that this is crap or at least isn't tangibly backed up. I was merely pointing that the title was a bit misleading with regards to the actual "thesis".

 

[Traitorfish]

The very fact he uses the term "Island of Anglia" shows that he hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about- that's roughly equivalent to saying "Continent of Texas". Utter nonsense, every word.

 

[EdwardTking]

Some people have argued that the official chronology of ancient
egypt is wrong and that two successive dynasties in the accepted
history were in fact parallel dynasties of north and souh Egypt.
Unfortunately this intellectually credible debate about ancient Egypt
has resulted in others deciding that they can postulate in other regions.

And this is such a complete crank!


1) Decide on your whacko theory.

2) Misinterpret linguistics and records to fit.


There are a number of systematic errors:

(1) The date a historical document was written is
the date of the oldest surviving copy. ???!!

So today's photocopy of C Dickens, proves he is 21 C author


(2) Documents were not changed when they were copied.
Fact is copiers would use new format dates, spelling on copying.


(3) Completely ignores all archaeological evidence.
Carbon and tree ringing dating works very well in UK.


(4) Linguistic evidence that common english words are not
derived from greek words and that complicated english words
are derived from latin rather than greek predecessors, is ignored.

 

[Xen]

I admit that I only read about 25% of the text. But it was so poorly written, and so politicised that it really didn't seem worthy of time.

alot like my posts back in the day, 'eh?


anyway I have no intention of reading anything but from this quote:

New chronology and new concept of the english history.
British empire as a direct successor of byzantine-roman empire

from this I surmise that I agree with it completely.