Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
Roman chronology is basically the foundation of the entire edifice of global chronology.
An imaginary foundation!
Despite its numerous gaps and inconsistencies, Roman history is the best-documented field of ancient history, and thus a reference scale of a paramount importance.
But how well do we know the actual date of the city's foundation?
The question makes more sense than it might seem for several reasons.
Firstly, Rome is supposed to have been founded by the Trojans who had to flee after the fall of Troy.
However, there are lots of different opinions as to when that happened exactly, and the datings offered are scattered over the range of five hundred years.
Some claim Rome to have been founded by Aeneas and Ulysses shortly after Troy had fallen; others are of the opinion that there was an entire dynasty that ruled for 400 years between the fall of Troy and the foundation of Rome.
What do modern historians really say about the correct chronology of the Ancient Rome when they do not have to produce textbook-friendly output?
The following: "Neither Diodorus nor Livy possess a correct chronology .
. . we cannot trust the fasti, which tell us nothing about who was made consul in which year, or the cloth writings that led Licinius Marcus and Tubero to contradictory conclusions.
The most trustworthy documentation is the kind that turns out to be much more recent forgeries after in-depth analysis".
This book will change your perception of History forever!
What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
Sounds Unbelievable?
Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?"
by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.
The old concepts of time were substantially different from modern ones.
"Before the 13-14th century the devices for time measurement were a rarity and a luxury.
Even the scientists didn't always possess them.
The Englishman Valcherius...
was lamenting the lack of a clock that afflicted the precision of his observations of a lunar eclipse in 1091.
"The clocks common for mediaeval Europe were sundials, hourglasses, and water clocks, or clepsydrae.
However, sundials only were of use when the weather was good, and the clepsydrae remained a scarcity."
In the end of the 9th century a.d., candles were widely used for timekeeping.
The English King Alfred took them along on his journeys and ordered them to be burned one after the other.
The same manner of timekeeping was used in the 13th-14th century, in the reign of Charles V. "The monks kept count of time by the amount of holy book pages or psalms they could read in between two observations of the sky...
For the majority, the main timekeeping medium was the tolling of the church bells".
One is to bear in mind that astronomical observations require a chronometer that possesses a second hand, while we learn that "even after the discovery and the propagation of mechanical chronometers in Europe, they had been lacking the minute hand till 1550".
This book will change your perception of History forever!
What if Ancient Rome, Greece and Egypt were invented during Renaissance?
What if The Old Testament was a rendition of events of the Middle Ages?
What if Jesus Christ was born in 1053 and crucified in 1086 AD?
Sounds Unbelievable?
Not after you've read "History: Fiction or Science?"
by Anatoly Fomenko, the genius mathematician.
Armed with astronomy and computers Anatoly Fomenko turns History into a rocket science.