History by Design E-Book

Mario Arndt

• Herausgeber: BoD - Books on Demand
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 128

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2025

Beschreibung

History analyst Mario Arndt, author of "History's Hidden Blueprint", unveils another sensational discovery: The chronologies of antiquity were invented - all at the same time and meticulously coordinated. At the heart of this construction lies the number 529, which is only three years less than the great 532-year Easter cycle. This book takes you deep inside the architecture of our timeline. Following a concise introduction to chronology and calendar eras, Arndt reveals the structural formulas used to engineer the past. He demonstrates, with clear examples, how historical data was systematically constructed to create duplicates in the timeline - phantom events and figures that, once furnished with written sources, entered the canon as "history." Prepare to see the past not as it was, but as it was built. This is the story of how chronology itself was fabricated. www.HistoryHacking.net

Leseprobe

The author

History analyst and author Mario Arndt writes about topics you won't find in traditional history books. He's from Germany (* 1963} and now lives in Thailand. His analyses of official history reveal how the Middle Ages, the ancient world, and the associated chronologies were fabri-cated and forged.

His professional background in IT as a software developer enables him to develop a completely new understanding of the official version of history and to discover what really happened in the past. He has published eight books since 2012.

Website: www.HistoryHacking.net

YouTube: @HistoryHacking

Contents

History is a model of the actual past

The difference between the past and history

History as a model of the past

Scientific progress

Scientific rigour in historical studies

Explanations in historical science

Falsifications in history

Examples of history formerly believed to be true

Scientific revolutions

Historical analysis as systems analysis

History Hacking-Anything Goes

What methods are used in historical analysis?

Structural analysis by Mario Arndt

Analysis in historical analysis

Historical chronology – calendars

The current Christian calendar

The structuring of time

Calendars

The elements of the calendar – days, weeks, months, and years

The indiction cycle

The calculation of the date of Easter

Historical chronology – year counting and calendar eras

Calendar systems in antiquity and the Middle Ages – An overview

Lists of rulers

The Olympiads

The era since the founding of the city of Rome

The Seleucid era

The Nabonassar era

The Diocletian Era

The Georgian calendar

Doubts about the authenticity of ancient calendars

Creation of the world

Evidence of an erroneous chronology and thus an incorrect model of the past

A few thoughts on Scaliger's Julian date

Doubts about the papal list and thus also about the rest of the chronology

The main problem with historical chronology

Further problems with historical chronology

Connections between the individual calendars

The construction of calendars

Introduction

A striking similarity

Everything fits together miraculously

The creation of the world – reloaded

The two Babylonian calendars

The two most important calendars of Greco-Roman antiquity

The structure of the calendars

Further connections

Comparison of different world ages

Were the two Babylonian calendars confused?

Shortening or lengthening of the chronology?

Something completely new: "The Chronology of the Bible" according to Zint

The end of the world

Construction of historical data using the number 529

The number 529 in the chronology of the Roman Empire

The number 529 in the chronology of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire 151

Continuation of the analysis for timekeeping in the Greco-Roman antiquity and dates of the Roman Empire The Frankish

emperors from 800 to 924 and the number 529

The significance of the years 529 and 1529 in the official history

Evidence of the construction of calendars in official history

Charlemagne and the Carolingians

Chronological problems in the history of Ethiopia are already scientifically recognized

The cause of Ethiopia's chronology problems: The construction of calendars

Ethiopia, biblical Israel, and Charlemagne

The Ottomans and the Ostrogoths

The first Germanic and the first German popes Further doublings at intervals of 462-470 years

Two imperial couples in Byzantine history

Afterword

List of illustrations

Bibliography

"Thus, those who pursue a science or art out of love and enjoyment, per il loro diletto, are looked down upon by those who have taken it up for profit, because they are only interested in the money that can be earned from it. This contempt is based on their base conviction that no one will seriously tackle a task unless spurred on by necessity, hunger, or some other greed. The public is of the same mind and therefore of the same opinion: this gives rise to its consistent respect for professionals and its distrust of amateurs.

In truth, however, the amateur is motivated by the thing itself, while the professional, as such, is motivated merely by the means; but only the one who is directly involved in it and who is engaged in it out of love for it will pursue it with complete seriousness; he pursues it con amore.

It is always such people, and not wage earners, who have achieved the greatest things. ”

Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860) on science

History is a model of the actual past

The difference between the past and History

"History has a dual meaning.

First, it refers to what has happened [...]

Secondly, however, the word also refers to the representation of what has happened, the history. ”

These sentences begin Heinrich Leo's "Textbook of Universal History" from 1839.

History is what historians have discovered (or, more precisely, believe they have discovered) about the past that has actually happened, i.e., what is taught at universities and schools and written in historians' books.

However, official history is only a model, a conception of the actual past, not the past itself. This model can, of course, also be wrong.

Figure 1: Model of time with the present, future, past, and history

The past is what actually happened, what the people who lived at that time actually did and experienced.

Our knowledge of the past can only ever be incomplete. The further back in time we go, the more incomplete our knowledge of those times tends to be, although this does not rule out the possibility that there may also be periods of time about which we are better informed.

Particularly problematic here is the period for which the historian Otto Brunner (1898-1982) coined the term "Old Europe," Le., antiquity, the Middle Ages, and the early modern times.

What we believe we know about these periods, especially about antiquity and the Middle Ages, comes largely from reading reports shaped by ideology and literature.

Only a very small part of what we know about the supposed facts of this period comes from accounts that originate from the actions of those who lived at the time (so-called "remnants” or “contemporary accounts"). This is a crucial difference to the modern era.

Fig. 1: "History," mosaic by Fred erick Dielm an (1847-1935)

The historian F.-J. Schmale describes this as follows:

In the practice of historical science, the historiography of the Middle Ages has therefore been viewed fundamentally differently from the historiography of modern times, without this having been theoretically justified. [Schmale 1985, p. 2]

History as a model of the past

However, the distinction between the past and history has not yet been universally accepted. For example, Egyptologist and cultural scientist Jan Assmann expressed it as follows:

"The past only comes into being when one refers to it.” [Assmann 2005, p. 31]

This roughly corresponds to the statement "If no one is looking, then the moon is not there. ”

Eugen Gabowitsch (1938-2009), the well-known historical analyst, criticized Assmann's statement as follows:

"Wrong! The past was, and when you refer to it, or believe that you are referring to it, then you are creating a model, then you are creating history." [Gabowitsch 2008]

I continue to quote Gabowitsch [Gabowitsch 2008]:

"I call what happened in the past the past, and I call the fruits of historians' literary activity—knowledge, representation, teaching—history. We know history well; you just need time to read.

History is a model of the past (also a system of such models). A model is everything, i.e., a narrative, an attempt to represent something mathematically and statistically. Models are always only a very rough approximation of the object, in this case the past. History models the past, attempts to describe it, to "reconstruct” it, to invent it.

The past cannot be wrong (only unknown or poorly known).

History can be false, bad, inaccurate, invented, mythical, legendary, etc."

Fig. 2: An illustration from a 15th-century manuscript of Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae (The History of the Kings of Britain), showing the British kings Vortigern and Ambros watching a battle between two dragons.

Scientific ous progress

New groundbreaking ideas, a new paradigm in science, i.e., a new "way of thinking," come primarily from people who work outside the official scientific community.

At universities people always think that

"almost everything has already been researched in this science, and it is only a matter of filling in a few insignificant gaps,"

as Munich physics professor Philipp von Jolly explained back in the 1870s, when Max Planck, the later founder of quantum physics, was studying with him.

Fig. 3: Max Planck (1858-1947)

It is also appropriate for a young scientist to adopt a modest and deferential attitude, as Max Planck did at the time:

"I have no desire to discover new territory, but merely to understand the existing foundations of physical science, and perhaps to deepen them."

With a different attitude, you won't get anywhere there.

Fig. 4: Of course, Max Planck knew nothing of this at the time.

However, it was easier for Planck than for many others, as his great-grandfather, grandfather, and father were already well-known professors, and his career path was therefore already mapped out at that time.

Nevertheless, he was ignored after completing his habilitation in physics, so that he only got a position as a private lecturer. But in the end, he did become a professor.

He was probably also the only one of those people who decisively changed their science in the 19th and 20th centuries by introducing a new approach, a new paradigm, that came from official university circles.

All the others came from outside, were completely unknown, and were initially ignored by the universities.

1) Albert Einstein, an employee at the Bern Patent Office, was one of them,

2) as was the world traveler Charles Darwin,

3) Karl Marx, who, although he was mistaken, was nevertheless extremely influential (right up to the "Frankfurt School" and the Bonn and Berlin court philosopher Habermas),

4) the physician Sigmund Freud, whose psychoanalysis, although largely ignored in university psychology, became very influential outside of academia and thus also had an impact on official science.

The established university professor of mathematics and history analyst Anatoly Fomenko ("History: Fiction or Science?") also falls into this category, as he is a mathematician and did not rise through the ranks of historical scholars. They therefore largely ignore him.

Fig. 9: Anatoli Fomenko's groundbreaking work on historical analysis from 2003

Scientificity in the history of science

Scientificity in itself is no proof of the correctness or incorrectness of the subjects studied within the respective science. Rather, the existence of these subjects is already assumed. Therefore, at its current stage of development, historical science can only make a limited contribution to our understanding of the period before the end of Old Europe.

This corresponds to the current state of theological science, which also cannot contribute to clarifying the question of whether gods and other heavenly spirits actually exist or not.

This can be easily seen in the development of so-called "source criticism" (more precisely: textual source criticism) over the centuries, for which the starting point was and is "everything is genuine," and not "everything is false” and must first be proven to be genuine.

Fig. 10: Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994), one of the most important philosophers of the 20th century

The objection that a number of written sources from the Middle Ages prove that the order of kings was as taught by official history is a typical argument of closed systems, according to philosopher Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994), and ultimately a logical fallacy.

For with this argument, someone who believes in the literal wording of the Bible could also prove that the world was created in six days. The only argument needed by the believer is the scriptural source for the creation of the world, the corresponding account in the Bible. He will refute all counterarguments with the claim that the sources speak against them.

This view of the dogmatists – "All scriptural sources are genuine and what is written in them is true, unless another source contradicts it" – implies an absolute claim to truth that cannot be fulfilled. This means that everything written in the scriptural sources is automatically true.

With this methodology, historical science cannot arrive at viable conclusions about the actual distant past.

Dogmatists among historians proceed according to the same pattern. They take the view that the written sources of antiquity and the Middle Ages are all genuine until it is proven that each individual source is false.

However, this is not only an inadmissible transfer of today's views on historiography in a small part of the world (claim to objectivity) to past times, but also completely naive in view of the extent of forgeries that are already known.

The Bible's view of the creation of the world has not been refuted by proving that the Bible text is a forgery. A more rational approach to finding knowledge has simply been taken. This is precisely the approach taken by history analysts.

Fig. 11: God as creator of the universe in a medieval manuscript

Explanations in the Historical science

The only criterion for explanations in historical science is that they are comprehensible. The level of these explanations is that of everyday understanding.

The philosopher Arthur Danto (1924-2013) writes in his work "Analytic Philosophy of History” (1965):

When one asks historians for an explanation of an event, one expects the historian to tell a true story about that event.

History tells stories and thus differs from theories in other sciences, which use hypotheses to explain events. Danto also emphasizes that these narrative structures are subjective and influenced by the interests of the historian.

Fig. 12: Stories play an important role in historical science.

And the philosopher of history William Dray (1921-2009) writes in "Explanatory Narrative in History" (1954):

"An historical explanation may thus amount to telling the story of what actually happened and telling it in such a way that the various transitions [...] raise no eyebrows."

Fig. 13: Possible or impossible – that is the question

In addition, speculation is permissible. The only requirement is that it does not contradict the sources.

However, such "explanations" are structured in exactly the same way as the "rationalizations" familiar from psychology.

"in psychology, the term refers to cognitive processes in which experiences, events, or observations are retrospectively (ex post) attributed to rational explanations.

These do not necessarily have to be the actual cause of the experience, but are often constructed and colored by personal bias. The supposed logic reduces cognitive dissonance and gives the person a sense of meaning. This can go so far as to construct memories in order to maintain meaning." [Wikipedia]

Forgeries in Medieval History

The topic of "forgeries" is a central theme in medieval studies. This was demonstrated by a multi-day international congress of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Institute for Medieval Studies) in 1986. A six-volume conference proceedings with almost 3000 pages was published on this topic.

Fig. 14: The Monumenta Germaniae Historica is a collection of documents on the German Middle Ages – and also the name of the institute that publishes it.

In the early Middle Ages, during the Merovingian period (6th-8th century), two-thirds of all documents have already been exposed as forgeries. In the subsequent Carolingian period (8th-10th century), it is currently almost fifty percent. According to legal historian H. C. Faußner, almost all royal documents prior to 1122 (Concordat of Worms) are forgeries.