Scaligerian chronology. Institute of Ancient Slavic Literature and Ancient Eurasian Civilization - IDC

A. T. Fomenko And G. V. Nosovsky discovered chronological shifts: historical events repeat themselves after 1800 years, 1053, 360 years, 333 years. Unfortunately, in their latest books, scientists round up their numbers to 1050, or 330; Obviously, their mystics themselves did not understand. And all these numbers have a magical meaning.

The creators and supporters of the New Chronology believe that repetitions in our history arose as a result of Scaliger’s error. I will show that they were “constructed” by him artificially. He based his calculations on the so-called numerology, a philosophical system according to which all the secrets of the world are hidden in numbers.

During evolution, people, when they lacked knowledge, always looked for the causes of events and tried to derive patterns. Numerology was invented by occultists, and it surprised them so much that over time they began to see a higher cosmic meaning behind the harmony of numbers, developed the theory, and encrypted it.

A. T. Mann writes in the book “Divine Architecture”:

“Symbolic mathematics was the core of the ancient secret schools and determined the sacred principles that governed the faith and life of people... Platonists, Hermetics, Rosicrucians, Christian Gnostics, Freemasons, members of orders of chivalry and many others used this sacred secret language.”

And this is reflected in our traditional history. If you think about the numbers of years through which many events are repeated, it becomes clear that what we are looking at is pure occultism! Could the timing of “repetitions” correspond so precisely to the “magic” numbers 333 and 360 if our “traditional history” had a natural course?.. Judge for yourself, events from antiquity to the Middle Ages are repeated with the following frequency:

333 years (half of 666).

360 years (half of 720).

693 years (360 + 333), “Arabic” repetition.

999 years (333 + 333 + 333).

1026 years (360 + 333 + 333).

1053 years (360 ? 2 + 333), “Christian” repetition.

1413 years (360 ? 3 + 333), “Roman” repetition.

1773 (360 ? 4 + 333) and

1800 years (360 × 5), “Greek” repetitions.

2133 years (360 ? 5 + 333), “Jewish” repetition.

2466 years (360 ? 5 + 333 ? 2), “Babylonian” repetition.

2799 years (360 × 5 + 333 × 3), “Egyptian” repeat.

3132 years (360 ? 5 + 333 ? 4).

3465 years (360 ? 5 + 333 ? 5).

In any case, the numbers 360 and 333 are present. We met the number 360 in a conversation about the precessional circle. It can be considered a divine number, laid by God as the basis for the rotation of the earth. And the number 333 is the devil’s, half of 666, the number of the beast. I won’t say why half was taken, but the fact remains: at the heart of Scaliger’s story is the number of “God” and the number of the “beast”.

An example is the history of Constantinople during the Crusades.

In 1204, Constantinople (“Second Rome”) was conquered by the Crusaders. 999 years earlier, around the year 200, Byzantium was conquered by Septimius Severus. And 333 years after Severus, and 666 years before the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders, in 538 Rome was conquered by the commander Belisarius. In 1261 the Orthodox recaptured Constantinople. 693 years earlier (360 + 333), in 568, the conquest of Rome by the Lombards began. In 1453, Constantinople was conquered by the Turks. 999 years earlier, in 455, Rome was conquered by the Vandals.

People interested in numerology know that the “sacred” magic number in it is nine. And so, studying historical repetitions, we discover a phenomenal abundance of nines:

333; 3 + 3 + 3 = 9.

360 – 333 = 27; 2 + 7 = 9.

360 + 333 = 693; 6 + 9 + 3 = 9 + 9.

360 ? 333 = 119 880; 1 + 1 + 9 + 8 + 8 = 9 + 9 + 9.

360: 333 = 1,08108108108…; 1 + 8 + 1 + 8 + 1 + 8 + 1 + 8 = 9 + 9 + 9 + 9…

Further “games” with the numbers from which the world chronology is compiled invariably lead to three sixes:

(360 + 360 + 360 + 360 + 360) : (360–333) = 1800: 27 = 66,6666666…

360: (360–333) x 2 = 360: 54 = 6.66666666…

The formation of such “historical repetitions” cannot be accidental. They are specially designed. However, we must take into account that Kabbalistic chronology should have arisen long before Scaliger, and he became only the finalizer of a certain tradition. N. A. Morozov wrote:

“This means, if necessary, the ancient historian had to restore the number of years of the reign of the ancient rulers by some Kabbalistic actions on the letters of their names, that is, it’s the same as guessing from cards, which also have a direct connection with Kabbalistics... On this basis, attempts would inevitably arise Kabbalistic definition of all historical events - attempts to create Kabbalistic chronology, starting from determining the time of creation of the world."

The traditional chronology that we have as a “textbook” is only a remnant of the original idea. The works of our main chronologist were supplemented and changed through the efforts of his followers, the largest of whom was Dionysius Petavius. The Scaligers, father and son, apparently were representatives of the philosophical concept according to which this imperfect world was created by God, and it is led by the devil, and therefore they based their chronology on the Number of the Beast from the Apocalypse - 666.

Here they follow exactly the teachings of the “Alexandrians”, about whom L. N. Gumilyov writes:

“The Alexandrian Gnostics imagined God as the highest being, contained within himself, and the source of all being. From it, like the rays of the sun, divine beings flowed out - eons. The more the eons moved away from their source, the weaker they became... The most extreme of the eons, due to its weakness, fell into matter and animated it, thanks to which the visible world was formed... The eon, because of which the world arose, was called by the Gnostics the Demiurge and equated with the god of the Old covenant. They believed that he made the world carelessly and would be glad to free the spirit from the hands of matter, but he does not know how to do this... The Highest Deity constantly takes care of the Demiurge’s victims - human souls. For this purpose, it sent the first aeon to Earth in a ghostly body. This eon was united at baptism with the man Jesus... Irritated by this, the Demiurge, or according to other ideas, Satan, brought Jesus to crucifixion.”

Occultists and Kabbalists often became chronologists, people who knew how to “calculate” history. Astrologer Michelle Nostradamus was the chronologist of Catherine de Medici. The author of Occult Philosophy, Cornelius Agrippa, was the court chronologist of Charles V. John Dee, who wrote a book on the magic of numbers, Monas Hieroglyphics, was the chronologist of Elizabeth Tudor. Abbot Trithemius, the teacher of Paracelsus, wrote a history for Maximilian I.

As we see, magicians dealt with chronology. And what is “chronology”, we ask ourselves? Is it really just “the science of measuring time,” as Encyclopedic Dictionaries tell us? Or, in the exact meaning, is it a philosophy about time, just as theology is a philosophy about God, and astrology is a philosophy about the stars?

We can say that science went side by side with the occult until the 18th century. The name itself Lucifer translated as “carrying light” (knowledge). But the philosophy of these magicians can be relevant to the history of mankind only as a fact of this history, and nothing more. For example, biology teaches that a person can be born with a tail. And if one can, then two or three can. But if you and I discover that, according to “history,” people with tails are born every 666 years, and certainly on the night of Ivan Kupala, then we, if we are serious scientists, MUST doubt - not the person, and not the tail , but in such a story. But THIS is exactly the story that has been taught in schools for several centuries!

Our main chronologist Scaliger compiled not a body of knowledge about the past of mankind, but a magical quirk. And so the entire scientific community of Russia is furiously saving her from the “terminator of world history” A. T. Fomenko, who proves the unreliability of Scaligerian constructions. It’s impossible to believe, but in 1999 the Russian Academy of Sciences created a commission for this purpose to combat “pseudoscience and falsification of scientific research,” and, in fact, the New Chronology. At specially convened meetings, pundits intimidate each other with “the danger of mythologizing history.” The question is, is that where they look for myths? They'd better re-read their own books!

The numerical values ​​of the “chronological shifts” constructed by Scaliger can be easily found in any occult works. In the dialogue “Timaeus” Plato sets out the story of the creation of the “soul of the world”:

"In the beginning he (demiurge - Author) separated a certain part from chaos; then he took another part, twice the size of the first; then - the third part, equal to the first three; the fourth, which was doubled by the second; the fifth, which was tripled by the third; the sixth, equal to the first repeated eight times; the seventh, equal to twenty-seven times the first.”

No matter how you encrypt the secret “knowledge”, you will get: 1+2+3+4+9+8+27=54.

In Chapter 36 of the Fifth Book (36 × 5 = 180) “Gargantua and Pantagruel” the Mason Francois Rabelais puts the words into Pantagruel's mouth:

“This is Plato’s real psychogony, extolled by academics, but only poorly understood by them: half of it consists of one, the next two numbers, two square numbers and two cubic numbers.”

We have the same formula: 1 + 2 + 3 + 22 + 32 + 23 + 33 = 54, is this half, and the whole is 54? 2 = 108.

What did Plato’s academicians allegedly do in the 4th century BC? e.? They played with the Number of the Beast:

54 + 666 = 720; 720: 108 = 360: 54 = 6,66666666.

Scaliger CALCULATED the cyclical, repeating history of mankind, taking as a basis Number of the Beast, 666. And filled these cycles with the verbal garbage of the Middle Ages. That's the whole traditional story.

In the 36th quatrain of the 5th century (36 x 5 = 180), the astrologer Nostradamus, a colleague of Scaliger, wrote, I believe, about this ( translation Author.):

Your sister's brother is you.

You will prepare the poison yourself:

A deception like death will be born -

Just as simple and crude.

Does this correspond to the words of those who are fighting with Fomenko: “The Scaligerian chronology is a simple truth, which in itself does not carry any spiritual or scientific depths, and therefore the New Chronology is a lie”? Historians should remember that there is a problem here.

To abandon the Scaligerian “scientific” chronology means to stop the centuries-long poisoning of ourselves with gross deception. If the chronology of earthly civilization is not brought into order in the near future, historians will have to repeat the words of the 16th-century humanist Sebastian Castellio more than once: “Descendants will not be able to understand why we again had to live in such dense darkness, after once there had already been light.” .

17. TWO PHANTOM “ANCIENT” REFLECTIONS OF THE 17TH CENTURY MEDIEVAL CHRONOLOGIST DIONYSIUS PETAVIUS.

In Scaligerian history, three chronologists of Dionysius are known, separated from each other by several centuries.

a. The first chronologist Dionysius allegedly died in 265 AD. .

#b. The second chronologist, the famous Dionysius the Small, allegedly lived in the 6th century AD. , . In Scaligerian history, there are different versions about the date of his death: around 540 AD. or around 556 AD

## c. The third and final chronologist of Dionysius is the famous Dionysius Petavius, 1583-1652.

Apparently, the first two “chronologists of Dionysius” are phantom reflections of one real Dionysius Petavius ​​with shifts of 1053 years and 1386 years. The second shift is obtained as the sum of two main shifts of 333 years and 1053 years. Let's give a brief description.

1a. The famous chronologist Dionysius allegedly died in 265 AD, according to Eusebius Pamphilus. I was especially involved in calculations related to EASTER.

#1b. The famous chronologist Dionysius the Small (Exiguus) allegedly died in the 6th century AD, either in 540 or 556. Allegedly, in the year 563 the so-called “pearl of PASCHAL Dionysius” falls.

## 1c. The famous chronologist Dionysius Petavius ​​(1583-1652) worked on EASTER calculations for many years. One of the creators of the version of chronology accepted today.

2a. With a total shift of 1386 years (where 1386 = 1053 + 333), Dionysius Petavius ​​from the 17th century is superimposed on Dionysius from the supposed 3rd century AD. In this case, the date of death of Dionysius Petavius ​​is exactly “transformed” into the date of death of Dionysius from the 3rd century, since 1652 - 1386 = 266 AD.

#2b. With a shift of 1053 years, Dionysius Petavius ​​is superimposed on Dionysius the Lesser from the supposed 6th century AD. In fact, 1652 - 1053 = 599 AD. It should be noted that PETAVIUS is actually the French word PETIT, meaning SMALL. Therefore, Dionysius Petavius ​​from the 17th century is simply Dionysius the Lesser. In Latin, Dionysius the Lesser from the supposed 6th century was called Exiguus (exigu) = small. Thus, both Dionysius - from the 17th century and supposedly from the 6th century - have the same names, that is, Small.

## 2c. Dionysius Petavius ​​is considered a student and follower of Scaliger. Scaliger and his students lived in France. Therefore, it is quite natural that in France the name “Small” sounded like petit and turned into “Petavius”. While in the texts of Latin authors the same name “Small” sounded like Exiguus. This is how the medieval Dionysius Petavius ​​turned into the “ancient” Dionysius the Lesser from the supposed 6th century AD.

#3b. Dionysius the Lesser, allegedly from the 6th century AD, is considered the first medieval author to calculate the time of Christ's birth. Dionysius stated that Christ was born about 550 years before him. It is believed that it was Dionysius the Small who was the first to correctly determine the date of the Nativity of Christ.

## 3c. According to our reconstruction, Christ was born in the 12th century AD. According to the erroneous medieval version, Christ was allegedly born a hundred years earlier, in the 11th century. Then the date would actually be approximately 550-600 years before Dionysius Petavius, who died in 1652. IT TURNS OUT THAT DIONYSIUS PETAVIUS, THAT IS DIONYSIUS THE SMALL, WAS GENERALLY RIGHT IN CLAIMING IN THE 17TH CENTURY THAT JESUS ​​CHRIST WAS BORN ABOUT 550 YEARS BEFORE HIM.

Thus, in those documents that were erroneously attributed to the 6th century and actually described the life and work of Dionysius Petavius ​​from the 17th century, the correct information survived that in the 17th century some authors still clearly remembered the birth of Christ precisely in the 11th or XII century.

18. NEW ASTRONOMICAL DATINGS ARE AGREED WITH DYNASTY IDENTIFICATIONS.

It is useful to describe in more detail the layered structure of the “Scaligerian history textbook” that we discovered. We described the overlap of four almost identical “chronicles” C 1, C 2, C 3, C 4 in the form of a table listing the events of the era-blocks in Fig. 6.59. The table is given in Appendix 6.

The “upward rise” of astronomical dating from “antiquity” to the Middle Ages appears to be in good agreement with the major chronological shifts of 330 (or 360) years, 1050 (or 1150 years) and approximately 1800 years. The shifts were discovered for completely different, non-astronomical reasons. First of all, on the basis of dynastic parallelisms. Conventionally, these shifts can be called “dynastic.”

Let us illustrate the coordination of astronomical and dynastic shifts with several striking examples.

1) STAR OF BETHLEHEM. According to the Gospels, at the birth of Christ, a bright star called the Bethlehem star flashed in the sky. According to the Scaligerian version, this outbreak dates back to the “zero year” of the new era. As we show in the book "Tsar of the Slavs", the outbreak actually occurred in the middle of the 12th century. However, then it was artificially shifted down by Scaligerian chronologists by 100 years. It turned out to be 1053 AD. And then they shifted again, by about 1000 years: from the 11th century to the 1st century. Since then, it has been erroneously believed that the famous supernova explosion occurred in 1054, and that the Star of Bethlehem erupted in the 1st century. The difference between the phantom year 1054 and the also phantom “year zero” is 1053 years. That is, exactly equal to the value of one of the main chronological shifts. This shift fits well with the independent superposition of the Second Roman Empire on the Holy Roman Empire of the 10th-13th centuries, and. But one should not think that the shifts we discovered describe some real periodicities in the distribution of dates of real astronomical phenomena, for example, eclipses or starbursts. Above we showed that the Scaligerian connections of ancient documents containing descriptions of eclipses to the dates of real ancient eclipses are in the vast majority of cases based on stretches.

3) APOCALYPSE. The Scaligerian date for the creation of this book ranges between the 1st and 2nd centuries AD. , . Our new astronomical dating of the Apocalypse according to the horoscope contained in it, see above, gives 1486 AD. The chronological shift here is approximately 1300-1350 years. That is, approximately equal to the sum of the first and second main chronological shifts of 330-360 years and 1000-1050 years.

4) JESUS ​​CHRIST. According to the Scaligerian version, Christ lived in the 1st century AD. According to our results, he lived in the 12th century AD, see the book “Tsar of the Slavs”. The chronological shift is 1153 years. It fits well with the independent dynastic parallelism superimposing the Second Roman Empire on the Holy Roman Empire of the 10th-13th centuries. The reflection of Christ in the “Roman” history of the 11th century is “Pope Hildebrand,” aka Gregory VII. See "Antiquity is the Middle Ages", chapter 4.

5) STAR FLARE. It is important that the three main chronological shifts - 330, 1050 (or 1150) and approximately 1800 years - are in good agreement with astronomical data of an IRREGULAR nature. When we talk about irregularity, we mean phenomena other than eclipses that occur with a certain periodicity, and in this sense are regular, that is, can be calculated. An important example of irregular phenomena is stellar flares. Three chronological shifts are clearly manifested in the distribution of Scaligerian dates for outbursts of novae and supernovae. It turns out that the dates of the "ancient outbreaks" are obtained from the dates of the medieval outbreaks by shifting the latter down by 333 years, by 1053 years (or 1150 years) and by approximately 1778 years. In particular, the dates of all outbreaks in the interval from supposedly 900 BC. to supposedly 390 AD. are obtained from the dates of outbreaks of the 10th-13th centuries AD. with a downward shift of 1053 years. For more details, see "Antiquity is the Middle Ages", chapter 4:5. Only one example of this kind has been given so far. The outbreak is supposedly 186 AD. "is obtained" from the actual outbreak of 1230 AD. a shift of 1044, which practically coincides with a chronological shift of approximately 1050 years.

6) THUCYDIDES. The triad of eclipses described by the “ancient” Thucydides dates back to the Scaligerian history of 431, 424 and 413 BC. Accurate astronomical dating places these three eclipses in the 11th or 12th centuries AD. See Chapter 1. Thus, the date shift here is approximately 1470 years or 1560 years. This is probably the difference between the second and third main chronological shifts, since 1800-330=1470 years.

7) TITUS LIVIUS. The eclipse described by Titus Livy in Histories (LIV, 36, 1) is dated by Scaligerian historians to 168 BC. With precise astronomical dating, it is identified with the eclipse of 955 AD, or with the eclipse of 1020 AD. The amount of upward shift here is either 1120 years or 1188 years. This is close to the second chronological shift of about 1050 or 1150 years.

9) DENDER ZODIACS. Scaligerian dating of the Round and Long Zodiacs of the Dendera Egyptian Temple - allegedly around 30 BC. (or 54-68 AD) and supposedly 14-37 AD. The exact astronomical solution is completely different, namely 1185 AD. for the Round Zodiac and 1168 AD. for the Long Zodiac, see chapter 2:5. Thus, the upward shift in dates is approximately 1150-1200 years.

10) ATHRIBIAN HOROSCOPE. They are dated by historians to around 52 and 59 AD. However, the exact astronomical solution gives 1230 and 1268 AD, see chapter 2:5. For details, see the book "Heavenly Calendar of the Ancients." The rise in dates here is about 1200 years.

19. THE STRANGE DIFFUSION WE DISCOVERED IN THE SCALIGEROAN CHRONOLOGY AROUND THE “BEGINNING OF A NEW ERA” NOW RECEIVES A SIMPLE EXPLANATION.

From the layered structure of the “Scaligerian history textbook” discovered by the author, it follows that “antiquity” should be a phantom reflection of the Middle Ages, the era of the 11th-16th centuries. The question is, will our conclusion be confirmed if we look at the building of Scaligerian history, considering the entire set of “ancient” kingdoms?

Yes, it is confirmed. Let's talk about a curious effect discovered by the author during a detailed analysis of J. Blair's "Chronological Tables", created at the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. These tables are very valuable to us. They were created in an era when Scaligerian history was just taking shape. Blair's tables brought to us a chronological picture that is still quite close to the primary version of Scaliger and his school, which arose at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th centuries. Therefore, these tables clearly demonstrate the principles by which Scaligerian history was created. From this point of view, the later tables of the 19th-20th centuries are worse than Blair's tables (and other similar works of the 17th-18th centuries) in the sense that the later tables are “too smooth”. Historians of the 19th-20th centuries diligently “brought a gloss on them”, filled the gaping voids and cracks with many small details, without changing the very essence of the erroneous Scaligerian chronology. As a result, many traces of artificial lengthening of chronology, which appear quite clearly, for example, in the old “Tables” of J. Blair, are neatly covered up in later works and buried in a multitude of secondary details. As a result, the seams of the Scaligerian chronology were covered with a thick layer of “historical concrete” of the 19th-20th centuries. Later slyly called “historical science”.

This leads to a practical conclusion. If we want to understand the emergence of Scaliger's chronology, we will have to analyze early tables of the 17th-18th centuries, like Blair's tables. By examining them, we discover more primary material than that which looks at us today from the pages of later, smoothed tables.

Let's start analyzing the Blair Tables. Here is the full title of their Russian translation, published in Moscow in 1808. "Chronological Tables, covering all parts of world history from year to year from the creation of the world to the 19th century, published in English by John Blair, Member of the Royal Society of London." They cover human history from supposedly 4004 BC. until the 19th century. All kingdoms are divided into two types. Kingdoms of the first type have their own weather records. From the kingdoms of the second type, their own chronicles have not reached us. That is, they are known to us only from mentions in documents of other “chronicle kingdoms”.

First of all, we will pay attention to the “chronicle kingdoms”, as well as information about different ways of counting years in antiquity, that is, different eras. It is this “system of eras”, in which Scaliger and his students “put things in order”, that forms the skeleton of the modern version of chronology.

A complete list of the main "chronicle kingdoms" with dynastic streams, data on which is at least partially preserved, is depicted on,. However, we have retained the terminology of the Blair Tables. Starting from the supposed 6th-8th centuries AD, we have indicated only the main kingdoms from. We did not mark small kingdoms dated by Blair after the 6th-8th centuries AD, so as not to clutter the picture. But the list of “Blairian kingdoms” is earlier than the supposedly 5th century AD. we have provided in full.

Let us turn to the main “ancient” chronology systems, as they are presented by Blair, and as they are described in modern commentaries. It turns out that these eras were often “forgotten” in Scaligerian chronology, sometimes for entire centuries. And then they were “reborn” again in their supposedly previous form. Let's list them.

1) "ANTIQUE" COUNT OF YEARS ACCORDING TO THE OLYMPIADS. It allegedly began in 776 BC. , table 1. The Olympic Games themselves, in honor of which the counting of years for the Olympics began, were FIRST introduced by the Dactyls in supposedly 1453 BC. Then the Games were FORGOTTEN. Then “RESTORED AGAIN” by Hercules in 1222 BC. Then FORGOTTEN again. "RESTORED" again by Iphitus and Lycurgus in supposedly 884 BC.

However, it suddenly turns out that the Games began to be used to calculate time only from supposedly 776 BC. By the way, in exactly the same way several times in the Scaligerian chronology other Games were “forgotten” and “restored”. For example, Isthmian, Nemean, Pythian. According to the Blair Tables, the counting of years by the Olympiads ceased around 1 AD. (!). So, this method of calculating time lasted approximately 776 years - from supposedly 776 BC. before 0 AD Then it was forgotten. In general, on the question of what year the Olympics began to be used for chronology, there were disagreements among chronologists of up to five hundred years, see below.

Let us illustrate this chronological chaos with several examples. According to Blair, the counting of years for the Olympics began at about the same time as the counting of years “from the founding of the City.” Today it is believed that the “City” meant Rome in Italy. What is incorrect, see above. Consequently, according to Blair, the Olympic counting of years allegedly began in the middle of the 8th century BC. But the historian S. Lurie claims that “in the era of Xenophon (that is, supposedly in the 5th-4th centuries BC - A.F.), chronology according to the Olympics was NOT YET carried out; it was introduced for the FIRST TIME by the Sicilian historian Timaeus around 264. BC." , p.224. It turns out that, according to Lurie, the “ancient” Timaeus first introduced the Olympiad calendar 512 years after the first Olympiad, supposedly dated back to 776 BC. The resulting divergence in the opinions of historians reaches, as we see, no less than five hundred years.

Thus, every time an old document mentions counting the years for the Olympics, one should carefully figure out from what absolute date the chronicler is counting the years. Depending on the choice of the starting point, fluctuations of at least five hundred years are obtained!

N.A. Morozov expressed the idea that the counting of years according to the Olympics, that is, according to four-year plans, simply coincides with the well-known Julian counting of years. In which four-year-olds are distinguished by a leap year system. That is, every fourth year is considered a leap year in the Julian calendar. According to this hypothesis, the Olympic counting of years began no earlier than Julius Caesar, who introduced the Julian calendar. Consequently, even in the Scaligerian chronology, the Olympiad-Julian chronology began no earlier than the first century BC, and certainly not in the monstrously ancient era of “ancient” Hercules. According to our reconstruction, which places Julius Caesar in an era no earlier than the 12th century AD, the counting of years according to the Olympics could begin no earlier than the 12th century AD. And most likely, it simply coincides with the Christian count of years from the Nativity of Christ. Starting around 1100 or 1152, that is, from the year of Christ’s birth in 1152, see the book “Tsar of the Slavs”. Moreover, the “ancient” Hercules is another reflection of Andronicus-Christ, as we show in the book “Hercules (Myths about Hercules are legends about Andronicus-Christ, recorded in the 16th century).”

Thus, the reasons for the discrepancies between different historians regarding when the Olympiad counting began become clear. Apparently, the counting of years according to the Olympics began with the Nativity of Christ in the 12th century and continuously lasted for several hundred years. There were no numerous “forgettings and revivals” of this era. Simply as a result of the “reproduction of chronicles”, one and the same real event - the beginning of the Olympics - “multiplied” (on paper!) and “went” into the deepest past. As a result, later historians, looking at the picture of duplicates and repetitions obtained in the Scaligerian textbook, and forgetting about the reasons for its occurrence in the 16th-17th centuries, began to talk meaningfully about the “forgetting” and “resumption” of the Olympiads. Look for reasons. Build thoughtful theories. Argue. Hercules or Dactyls. Or Iphit and Lycurgus... In general, a large “field of activity” has opened up.

2) "ANTIQUE" COUNT OF YEARS FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE CITY. This count of years supposedly dates back to 753 BC. , table 5. But then we are told that this date was first established only allegedly in the 1st century by the Roman Varro. That is, supposedly 700 years (!) after, according to Scaliger, Rome was founded. The count of years “from the foundation of the City” supposedly ends in the 3rd century AD. Namely, in the decade 250-260 AD. . This is the period of civil wars in Rome, supposedly the middle of the 3rd century AD. Blair reports: “Most of the chronicles cease to record (at this time - A.F.) chronology from the founding of Rome,” table 15. Let us recall that the identification of the “City” with Italian Rome is just a hypothesis of historians. In fact, The city was first called New Rome on the Bosphorus. And then, from the 14th century, Rus'-Horde began to be called that way, see “The Beginning of Horde Rus'.” It is believed that the City was founded around 300 AD and consecrated in 330 AD Thus, even within the framework of Scaligerian chronology, the replacement of Italian Rome with Bosphorus Rome leads to a thousand-year shift in dates, counted in some chronicles “from the foundation of the City.” Such texts include, for example, the famous “History” of Titus Livy.

3) COUNTING THE YEARS FROM THE NATIVITY OF CHRIST. Scaligerian history says that this counting of years allegedly first began to come into use in 747 AD, that is, seven hundred years after the death of Christ in the 1st century. And two hundred years after the calculations of Dionysius the Less, who supposedly lived in the 6th century AD. and for the first time calculated the date of the crucifixion of Christ. Next, the already familiar picture of “forgetting and restoration” of eras is repeated. We are told that after the first mention of the era from the birth of Christ<<в официальном документе 742 г.н.э., эта эра СНОВА ВЫХОДИТ ИЗ УПОТРЕБЛЕНИЯ И ВНОВЬ НАЧИНАЕТ ИЗРЕДКА УПОМИНАТЬСЯ УЖЕ ТОЛЬКО В X В.Н.Э. И ТОЛЬКО С 1431 года (то есть с пятнадцатого века! - А.Ф.) начинает РЕГУЛЯРНО отмечаться в папских посланиях, но и то с параллельным счетом годов от "сотворения мира">>, p.52. It is quite remarkable that in secular chronicles the era from the Nativity of Christ appeared even later. Historians report that in Germany it was established only in the 16th century, in France - also only in the 16th century, in Rus' - only in 1700, in England even later - in 1752, p.52. Thus, even according to Scaligerian chronology, only from the 15th century can we talk about a more or less regular use of the era from the Nativity of Christ (which, according to our results, occurred in 1152).

Previous very rare "mentions" of the era of R.H. in documents allegedly earlier than the 10th-11th centuries AD. are, therefore, the result of duplicating chronicles and pushing them into the deep past. As a result, mentions of this era in documents of the 12th-17th centuries “appeared phantom” allegedly in the 6th century and in the 8th century. Looking at these phantoms, later historians began to build thoughtful theories, for example, about Dionysius the Less in the supposed 6th century AD. But, as noted above, “Dionysius the Lesser from the 6th century” is only a phantom reflection of Dionysius Petavius ​​(that is, SMALL = PETIT) from the 16th-17th centuries AD. It turns out that Dionysius Petavius ​​= Dionysius the Small first correctly calculated the date of the crucifixion of Christ approximately 550 years before himself. And, as we now understand, he was absolutely right. Because, postponing 550 years from the middle of the 17th century (Petavius ​​died in 1652), we end up in the 12th century. When, according to our reconstruction (in 1152-1185), Andronicus-Christ actually lived and was crucified.

So, returning to and, we see that in Scaligerian history the two main “ancient” accounts of years - according to the Olympiads and from the foundation of the City - ended at least 500 years before the first and only official mention of the era from the Nativity of Christ in a document supposedly 742 years old. The dating of which, as we said, is very doubtful.

4) "ANCIENT" COUNT OF YEARS FROM THE CREATION OF THE WORLD. This era is believed to be closely related to the Bible. Therefore, it completely depends on the dating of biblical events. Since they rise in the Middle Ages, as a result of the use of new dating techniques, then, most likely, this count of years is of medieval or even late medieval origin. And it began, according to our reconstruction, no earlier than the 12th century AD.

5) COUNTING THE YEARS THROUGH THE GEJRA ERA. This Arabic counting of years is believed to have begun in 622 AD. , table 19. It is closely related to the dating of the Koran and the events described in it. Therefore, most likely, it is also of late origin and began no earlier than the 14th-15th centuries AD. See our book "Prophet the Conqueror".

An important fact is clearly visible from and. In Scaligerian chronology, all kingdoms, except two, fall into two classes. The first class is kingdoms that existed entirely before the beginning of the new era. The second class are kingdoms that existed entirely after the beginning of the new era. Interval 0-260 AD only two kingdoms cross. These are the Roman Empire and the Parthian Kingdom. It turns out that the beginning of a new era had some strangely destructive properties. Only two of the many other “ancient” kingdoms safely crossed this “dangerous interval” of 0-260 AD.

However, there is no continuous information about the dynasties of Parthia. Therefore, this kingdom cannot serve for chronological reference and “stitching” of different eras.

Regarding another kingdom - the Roman Empire - let's say the following. In the interval 0-260 AD. falls just like the Second Roman Empire. Its end, namely, 260-270 AD, exactly coincides with the end of the “dangerous interval” we have now discovered, 0-260 AD. Moreover, it is clear that the decade 260-270 AD, that is, precisely the junction of the Second and Third Roman Empires, is not covered by either the Olympic count of years, or the count of years from the founding of the City, much less the count of years from Christmas Christ, who, as historians themselves tell us, “does not exist” yet. According to Scaligerian chronology, in the decade 250-260 AD. The count of years from the foundation of the City ends. And the Olympic count supposedly ended 250 years before this moment. Christian counting of years not only has not begun, but has not even been invented yet. Before it began in the 12th century AD. another few hundred years.

Further, in the “dangerous interval” 0-260 AD. The Roman episcopate also partially falls into this category. However, papal history 68-141 AD. considered completely legendary in Scaligerian history, p.312. Blair also writes: "Before the end of this century (that is, until the beginning of the 2nd century AD - A.F.)... in this column (that is, in the list of popes - A.F.) there appears to be a GREATEST UNKNOWN." table 13. The next papal period of 68-141 is not independent, since it is just a phantom reflection of the papal period supposedly 314-536. Moreover, both of them are reflections of much later papal history. Thus, the first period of the Roman episcopate, rising upward, is identified with its second period. As a result, the era from 30 BC. to 270 AD in Scaligerian chronology, that is, an era lasting about 300 years, turns out to be a zone of COMPLETE CHRONOLOGICAL SILENCE OF DOCUMENTS. During this period, according to Scaligerian chronology, there is not a single historical kingdom with its own independent dynastic flow.

Era from 30 BC to 270 AD ends in failure in Scaligerian chronology. Let us recall that the two main “ancient accounts” of this time - the era from the foundation of the City and the era of Diocletian, which supposedly began in 284 AD - do not fit with each other. There is a chronological gap between them, a gap of at least 20 years. Let us repeat that there is still no talk of any counting of years from the Nativity of Christ.

CONCLUSION. The Scaligerian chronology clearly reveals the place where several duplicate chronicles were stitched together. This is the era supposedly 0-260 AD. Someone in the 16th-17th centuries placed several phantom duplicate chronicles on the time axis and stitched them together into a single “textbook”. The docking was done rather roughly. They didn’t even bother to “cover” the junction with some era. They probably decided that this would do. As a result, the fictitious “beginning of a new era” in the supposed year zero divided Scaligerian history “in half,” and. The result was many “ancient” kingdoms before the beginning of the new era, and many medieval kingdoms after the beginning of the new era. And around the beginning of a new era, a strange failure arose. Which we discover today on the basis of new methods, analyzing the building of Scaligerian chronology as a whole.

Summary of Chapter 6. We discovered "identifications" of ancient and medieval dynasties. They form a certain chain, “at the head” of which, that is, the closest to us in time, is the dynasty of the Russian-Horde king-khans of 1273-1600. All other ancient dynasties turn out to be its phantom reflections, thrown into the past. This means that the main ancient and medieval kingdoms reflected in ancient chronicles are, to one degree or another, descriptions of basically the same Empire of the 14th-16th centuries. Which we call the Great = "Mongol" Empire. In particular, the “ancient” Roman Empire is also one of its phantom reflections.

ITS MAIN COMPONENTS

THE USUAL VERSION OF WORLD HISTORY TODAY,

APPEARING TO BE INCORRECT

In this chapter we do not substantiate our point of view, since this

would result in a significant increase in volume and actual repetition

everything that has already been said above and will be stated in the following

books of this edition. We formulate here only our reconstruction

tion, presenting it in the form of a short textbook. For evidence we sent-

We refer to our scientific works on relevant topics. Much of

What has been said in this chapter is still a hypothesis.

Let us immediately make a reservation that we do not pretend to be highly accurate

dates mentioned below. Even more work will be required to clarify

thread a new short chronology and some of our hypotheses. That's why

we are trying to reconstruct the true history so far only “according to history”

kam", that is, indicating the century of a particular event, but usually without specifying

date within the century.

We will call (conventionally) history earlier than the 17th century - old history.

ria, and the history of the 17th-20th centuries - new history. As will be seen from

further, such a division corresponds to the essence of the matter.

Let us repeat that much of what is said in this book is

hypotheses for now. However, they rely on a new chronology,

obtained by us using natural scientific methods independently

th dating. On the other hand, we affirm that today

There is no reliable justification for the Scaligerian chronology.

Since such justification, as we affirm with full answer,

property, was not and is not, then the history of antiquity will, apparently,

uh, write again.

Before moving on to our reconstruction (see Fig. 64, 65), which

Paradise differs very significantly from the usual version of Scaliger -

Petavius, it makes sense to repeat more clearly what it represents

is Scaligerian history and chronology and how it arose. Necessary

say that the general picture of the situation in which it was created and

a historical + chronological version of Scaliger - Petavius ​​was introduced,

finally became clear only in the course of our latest research on

new chronology. A clear understanding of this picture puts a lot on

their places.

Let us recall its main components.

1. Most likely, the historical primary sources available today are

shakh - were created together with the Scaligerian version of history in order to

justification and confirmation. They were created by distortion and

targeted editing of really old texts. Sami

old texts telling the true story were destroyed. All this

occurred in the 17th-18th centuries within the framework of the international European

programs for “modernization” in the interests of the ruling dynasties of ancient and

medieval history and chronology. This program had a powerful

government support both in Western European countries and in

Romanov Russia. Then, in the 18th-19th centuries, the Scaligerian version

history was introduced in China and other Asian countries. Based on it,

Asian and, above all, Chinese “ancient” chronology was built.

In the XVII-XVIII centuries, in order to establish the Scaligerian historical

Which version is deliberately created almost all published today

editions of the works of “ancient” Greek and Roman authors, medieval

kov chronicles, memoirs, etc.

Sources that accidentally did not pass the censorship of Scaligerian zealots

which version, for almost two hundred years were carefully sought and

were destroyed. At least they were taken out of circulation. Similar

The “work” continued into the 19th century. A striking example is ruin

Sulakadzev library (see below). In the 19th century, and even more so in the subsequent

decades, the surviving old texts were already perceived as

something curious, unworthy of scientific study. It immediately fell on them

suspicion of gross forgery or, at best, complete ignorance

Documents of this kind, as a rule, are not published or studied.

historical + academic community. Although from time to time they

are still in sight. Each of these documents is reproduced

produces only a small piece of a long-forgotten picture and therefore

is not able to change anything in our consciousness. On my own, outside

overall historical picture, it is simply incomprehensible. And by comparison

and none of the serious historians study such “curiosities”

is engaged.

It is important to understand that today, when publishing primary sources,

there is - consciously or unconsciously - strict censorship on their respective

the effect of the Scaligerian historical + chronological version. "Worthy

attention" only primary sources are recognized, naturally inscribing

falling into the usual Scaligerian picture of history. Put into circulation

only texts that underwent targeted editing in the 17th century

XVIII centuries.

As a result, we are forced to judge antiquity and the Middle Ages by

sources offered by the Scaligerian historical school. Name-

but they are multiplied by the printing press. Therefore, an erroneous forwarding is created

chatting as if only such sources existed.

2. It turned out that there is a clear boundary in history - the first

half of the 17th century. What happened after it, that is, closer to us, we

we know quite well, at least since the end of the 18th century.

And we have only a vague idea of ​​what happened before it.

tion. This border - the first half of the 17th century - arose artificially.

It is not the result of natural forgetting of information. Her

trace in the Scaligerian version - the border between the “gloomy Middle Ages-

eat" and "new time". This is the line between right and wrong.

vil history.

3. Modern historians of the Scaligerian school - and another school

the history of antiquity and the Middle Ages does not exist today - they are,

as a rule, by specialists in the falsified Seliger version,

and only for her. Today it is accepted as an axiom that the Scaligerian

the version of history and the real story are one and the same. How are we now

We understand that this is not true. In other words, modern historians believe

who say that they are dealing with “ancient” and medieval history, on

in fact, they study not real history - through those that have come to us from ancient times

documents, and the artificial world, a kind of mythological phantom,

created by historians and editors of the 17th century. Today historians

use texts distorted and edited in the 17th-18th centuries

stami, mistakenly taking them for “genuine ancient primary sources.”

Modern historians are immersed in this artificial world,

spend their entire professional lives there. Without suspecting that

this “virtual reality” was invented by their recent predecessors -

mi, Scaligerian historians, in the 17th-18th centuries.

The artificial world of Scaligerian history ultimately appears content

but complex, branched, makes an impression at first glance

something solid, reliable and consistent. But that's not true. Not-

biased view from the outside, based on objective methods

dating, quite quickly discovers everything in this fairy-tale world

signs of a sand castle. Further analysis leads to a rapid development

the collapse of the Scaligerian building.

In this case, why do historians today work in the final analysis?

account only with those texts and their derivatives that have been edited

roved in the 17th-18th centuries, during the creation of the Scaligerian version? By

in our opinion, the reason here is the pressure of a certain school,

the pressure of established ideas in the historical and academic environment. IN

at one time these ideas were introduced by force, and

Today they have acquired the character of “generally accepted evidence.” Counts,

that there is a set of “reliable”, “correct” primary sources. A

these are precisely the Scaligerian editions of old texts. Only

they, they say, deserve to be taken seriously. All other sources

are declared “ignorant”, “fabulous”, simply “made up”

by someone+" texts. Studying them, they say, is not the job of serious scientists.

4. Of course, it was impossible to destroy all the old pre-Scaligerians+

some documents. Some of them should still exist today. But

Let us imagine a case when in the hands of a modern historian, a specialist

hundred according to the “Scaligerian phantom”, a genuine ancient document was found,

describing, say, the era of the XV-XVI centuries. As we now understand,

the difference between the true history of this era and its Scaligerian depiction

expression is so great that such a document would be difficult to even compare

with the usual Scaligerian picture. Or at least understand what it's about

there is a speech in it. Not to mention that if this is really

original of the 15th-16th centuries, then it is likely to be written

just unusual letters, “incomprehensible icons.” After all, it’s habitual

“ancient handwritings” that are new to a specialist in the Scaligerian version are

in fact, the handwriting of forgers + editors of the 17th century. And with re-

al handwriting and fonts of the 15th-16th centuries, not to mention more

early eras, the researcher, as a rule, does not encounter.

Therefore, the authentic old historical text that was accidentally discovered

ki will most likely be declared simply “unreadable”. Which, by the way, is always

and it happens.

5. The following must be said about printed publications of the 15th-16th centuries. Books,

which indicate the dates of publication of the 15th-16th centuries, often turn out to be

forgeries of the 17th-18th centuries with backdated years

release. Supposedly “earlier”. Mass publication of such books allegedly

XV-XVI centuries in the XVII-XVIII centuries was an important part of the work on “substantiation”

vaniya" of the Scaligerian version of history. The original books are XV-

XVI centuries were persecuted and destroyed along with handwritten documents

tami. Therefore, printed books are no different from manuscripts in their reliability.

ity when we wish to extract from them the true history of the XV-

XVI centuries. Among the printed books there are also many forgeries of the 17th-18th centuries.

6. Many authentic official documents of Western Europe

16th century, emanating from the imperial office, were written as

We now understand in Slavic. And many books published then

in Western Europe, they were also in Slavic. However, the fact of widespread

printing of Slavic books in Western Europe in the 16th century is known

alists. Since the language of international communication in Western Europe

in that era it was most likely Slavic.

The transition from the Slavic language to Latin as an international language

communication in Western Europe occurred only after the collapse of the Great

empire at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. More about the Great = Russian+

We will describe the Horde Empire in detail below. Most likely Latin

The Chinese language in its developed “ancient” form appeared only in the 16th century.

XVII centuries. Therefore, all “ancient” Latin texts are at their best

case, translations made in the 16th-17th centuries to the designated

"ancient" language Latin. Scaligerians were immediately included in these translations +

Russian chronological edition.

The same can be said about the “ancient” + Greek language. He also

was created along with all the “ancient” + Greek literature in the 16th century

XVII centuries. They were immediately written on it, translated into it,

“Ancient Greek primary sources” have been edited. Hereby

The ancient language is probably Central Greek, Byzantine.

No wonder it is completely different from modern Greek, in

difference from “ancient”+Greek, which is very close to modern Greek

cheskogo. All “ancient Greek” literature is also heavily edited

translations of old texts into newly invented ones, translated in the 16th-17th centuries

shadowy “ancient” language.

7. According to our reconstruction, the creation of the Scaligerian version

history was the consequence of a major political reorganization

world at the end of the 16th - beginning of the 17th century. After the collapse of the Great = "Mon-

Gol Empire arose new independent, much smaller

some states. The former imperial governors became independent

by our lords. At first they were afraid of the return of the old "Mongolian"

orders of magnitude. They needed to prove in the historical past “long ago”

establishing strong roots” of their power. The main goal of the new (at that time, but

today the already familiar) historical version of Scaliger was distorted in

in the right direction the story immediately preceding that

era. That is, the history of the XIV-XVI centuries. This story is intentionally distorted

But. As for earlier eras, their phantom content in

Scaligerian version is for the most part a result in the very

case of unintentional chronological errors.

By the way, the name or surname “Scaliger” is most likely not at all

a first name and not a surname in the modern sense. This is a nickname meaning

Scale, Scale, that is, “ordering in time.” In other words,

the person who created the chronology scale and the history scale was nicknamed Scali_

hero. His real name has apparently been forgotten. And the word scale

probably comes from the Russian “how much”. That is, “how many years.”

The global nature of the scale of the activities carried out in the 17th century

grams on writing an artificial, phantom history of the past we

We are only now beginning to understand. Don't be surprised at the consistency

actions to falsify historical “primary sources” in various countries

nah. According to our reconstruction, until the end of the 16th century, almost all European

Pei and Asian countries were part of a single Empire, therefore

all their rulers came from the same circle of imperial officials.

Relations between the former provinces of the Empire were in the first time after

its splits are still very strong.

At the same time, the 16th century accounts for very little “preliminary

historical work." And then only at the end of the century. Main work on

writing falsified history, including the creation of a corpus

"ancient sources", was carried out in the 17th century, when the Empire was already

completely collapsed. That is, after the Time of Troubles in Rus' and

the Romanovs' victory over Stepan Razin. Quite a lot has been done in

in the same direction in the 18th century, especially after the victory of the Romanovs

over Emelyan Pugachev in the war of 1773-1775. Only since the 19th century

The Scaligerian version of history acquired its final, modern forms.

Now let's move on to a sequential consideration of our reconstruction.

handicrafts of the historical process since ancient times. We will keep

adhere to the following principle, obviously natural in this case:

pa. We will move “up” along the time axis, presenting our reconstruction

tion of general history over the centuries.

At the same time, we will explain which chronology we will use,

naming the dates of certain events. We will use the usual

chronology "according to the new era". However, we emphasize that by this era

should be treated as a purely arbitrary scale. One of the many possibilities

nykh. As it turns out, at the “beginning of a new era,” that is, approximately 2000 years

ago, no significant event occurred, information

about which they would have reached the present time. Moreover, about this distant

era, apparently, no information has been preserved at all. this era

it is incorrect to call “from the Nativity of Christ”, as is usually the case today -

Yes. Since the Nativity of Christ, according to our reconstruction,

happened about a thousand years later. Namely, in the 11th century according to this

conventional “new era”.

Read about it yourself on Wikipedia. I will just give a short quote from there:
Before Scaliger, historians used the chronological systems that they found in the sources: for example, to describe the events of antiquity - according to the Olympiads, according to the consuls, from the founding of Rome, and when comparing dates they relied on some well-known synchronisms. Scaliger was the first to set the task of systematically studying the relationship between various calendar systems and chronological eras.
Do you know what's the funniest thing? This paragraph practically repeats my thoughts that I expressed in the post. About the fact that we didn’t have any end-to-end chronology before. Which means, in essence, there was no history.
But that's not even the most interesting thing. Scaliger had a conceptual work - De emendatione temporum (On correcting chronology) 1583. And you can even find it online. Here he is . It will just be difficult to read it. It is written in Latin. Moreover, as I understand it, it has not been translated into other languages. But why? This is essentially a bible for historians. Well, it’s clear before. Latin was taught in schools back in the 19th century. But now why is there no translation? I'm sure it would have sold a very large number of copies. And there would be no problems with copyright holders. Well, okay, publishers, but even Fomenko spared money for all this. But on the basis of this translation it would be possible to whip up several books smashing Scaliger to smithereens. But no. Something is stopping you.
And I'll tell you what. There's a different story there. Quite another. Which refutes even such an alternativeist as Fomenko.
Unfortunately, reading this book is almost impossible. Even Google translator produces 1 sane word out of 100. Although it seems that if Latin has been a dead language for God knows how many years, then in theory it should not change. But apparently everything has changed.
But I found a translation of the book's table of contents into Russian. Moreover, as I understand it, this is a website of Fomenko’s opponents. But even they did not understand what they translated.

So what is the actual name of this book?
OSEPHI SCALIGERI IULII CAESARIS F. OPUS NOVUM ABSOLUTUM PERFECTUM OCTO LIBRIS DISTINCTUM
A NEW, COMPLETELY CORRECTED WORK OF JOSEPH SCALIGER, SON OF JULIUS CAESAR, DIVIDED INTO EIGHT BOOKS.

Like this. He turns out to be the son of Julius Caesar. Which is written about, by the way, at the beginning of each chapter. And the book itself is dedicated: CUM PRIVILEGIO CAESAREAE MAJEST - DEDICATION TO THE GREAT CAESAR.
Do you really know that all this converges, which most likely happened precisely in those years when Scaliger lived? And he could actually be the son of one of the Caesars. And dedicate your work to the now reigning Caesar.
I couldn't get anything out of the title of the first four parts of the book. But from the fifth something more intelligible and interesting begins.
BOOK FIFTH THE FIRST, WHICH TALKS ABOUT TIME AGES.

De Mundi conditu-On the creation of the World

De Diluvio-On the Flood

De Exodo Hebaeorum - On the Exodus of the Jews

De primo anno Sabbathico - About the first sabbatic year

De Ilii excidio-On the fall of Ilion

De conditu Templi Solomonici-On the construction of Solomon's Temple

De Encaeniis Templi Solomonici-On the consecration of Solomon's Temple
De anno primo Samaritanorum - About the first year of the Samaritans

De initio Olympiadum - About the beginning of the Olympics

De primis palilibus Urbis Varronianis-On the first Palilias of the City according to Varro

De primo Thoth Nabonassari-About the first Thoth of Nabonassari

De initio Merodach, sive Mardocampadi - On the accession of Merodach or Mardocampad

De excessu Romuli - On the death of Romulus

Does this remind you of anything? It's like the Bible. In fact, there is nothing so strange here for that time. Our "Tale of Bygone Years" begins with the flood. And the Slavs descended from one of the sons of Noah.
Listen, are you sure that Scaliger invented chronology from the birth of Christ? But I began to wonder about something. By the way, I came across a more or less sane line there in the section “On the Creation of the World.” The exodus from the foundation of the house Solomonici ícriptura puts 480 years. Since the founding of the world, the foundation of the Solomonici Temple was assembled in 2933. cafum Sedekia on this? king and temple vaftation.
But to understand all this, again you need a translator. Ohhohoho.
True, the section “On the Fall of Ilion” is missing from this biblical chronicle. This is the second name of Troy, by the way. Actually, the name of the book, “The Iliad,” came from here. And the Olympics somehow don’t fit into this.
And then it gets even more interesting:

SEXTUS LIBER IDEM ALTER DE EPOCHIS TEMPORUM IN DUAS PARTES TRIBUTUS
THE SIXTH BOOK, THE NEXT, IN WHICH THE AGES OF TIME ARE PRESENTED, IN TWO PARTS

PRIOR PARSFIRST PART

De vero anno natalis Regis Messiae - About the true year of birth of the King Messiah

De vero anno et die passionis Dominicae - About the true year and day of the passion of the Lord

De interuallo a baptismo ad primum Pascha - About the interval between baptism and the first Easter

De interuallo a baptismo ad secundum Pascha -On the interval between baptism and the second Easter

Those. Logically, it turns out that this King Messiah is Christ. But I just didn’t find this name in the book. Well, why talk unfoundedly, here is an index of names and titles:

That is, there is something written in the book about Christians. But specifically about a person named Jesus Christ, it turns out no.
And at the very end of the book there is this section:
Epilogismus temporum Epocha hvius operis absolutiThe absolute epoch of the time of completion of this work

Here's what it looks like:

Those. If I understood correctly, then this is a tablet indicating what year it was at the time the book was written according to one or another calendar. And at the end there seems to be some kind of king, the Messiah, the Son of God. But I still don’t understand how many years have passed since his birth or death.
Again, the Roman numerals in this passage are not very large - 11, 12, 25. What are these, the serial numbers of the kings? And where are the actual numbers, how many years have passed in this or that chronology system?

UPD: I looked through the book again and I got the strong impression that it was nonsense written in numbers. But those last four words are the date, something like a year - one thousand five hundred and eighty or something.
In Rus', at least they did it honestly, they simply introduced chronology from scratch in 1492 and began counting years from that date. But the West is the West. In principle, they cannot live without perversions.