History Hacking E-Book

Mario Arndt

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

Seitenzahl: 175

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2023

Beschreibung

History analyst and author Mario Arndt writes about topics you won't find in traditional history books. His analyses of official history reveal how the Middle Ages, the ancient world, and the associated chronologies were fabricated and forged. This is a book like no other! Hack #0: History Hacking - Anything goes Hack #1: The made-up lists of kings in the Middle Ages Hack #2: The made-up chronology of antiquity Hack #3: The numerical code of the Bible in history Hack #4: The 800-year cycle in history Hack #5: Charlemagne - the made-up Emperor Hack #6: Augustus - the made-up first Roman Emperor Hack #7: The new dating of the astronomical reports of antiquity Hack #8: Jesus Christ on the imperial throne Hack #9: The made-up list of popes Hack #10: An new chronology of the history of mankind This book is so intelligent and entertaining at the same time that it is a must read.

Leseprobe

The Author

History analyst and author Mario Arndt writes about topics you won't find in traditional history books. His analyses of official history reveal how the Middle Ages, the ancient world, and the associated chronologies were fabricated and forged. He has published eight books since 2012.

Website: https://www.HistoryHacking.de/

YouTube Channel in English:

https://www.youtube.com/@HistoryHacking

YouTubeChannel in German:

https://www.youtube.com/@Chronologiekritik

Table of Contents

Preface

History Hacking – Anything goes

Forgeries in history

Scientificity in the science of history

History according to the geometric method

Analytics of history as system analysis

The difference between the past and history

History as a model of the past

Summary: Two main problems in the history of Old Europe and their solution

Anything goes

Computational Thinking

What are the methods of History Hacking?

Summary: Four methods of History Hacking

Hack #1: The Made-up List of Kings in the Middle Ages

The structural analysis

"Control groups" in modern England and the USA

The "Roman Empire" from 911 - 1313

The "Roman Empire" from Charlemagne to Charles V.

Abstract description of the entire system from Ch. Martell to Charles V

The well-structured Middle Ages of France

The Queens of France in the High Middle Ages

The connection between the systems of royal names of Germany and France

England in the Middle Ages

Russia and Ukraine

Common features of the structures of the lists of rulers in Eastern and Northern Europe

Regularities among the Kings of the Iberian Peninsula

Decoding the Constantinople Code

Hack #2: The Made-up Chronology of Antquity

Everything fits together miraculously

A striking coincidence - the Jewish calendar

Equally striking - the Christian Byzantine calendar era

The two Babylonian calendar eras and the two most important calendar eras of Greco-Roman antiquity

The construction plan of the calendar eras

The 529 in the chronology of the Roman and Byzantine Empires

Hack #3: The Bible Code in History

Introduction

“The Holographic Generating Set“ 27 - 37 – 73

The numerical code of the Old Testament (Genesis 1:1) in history

The numerical code of the New Testament (John 1:1) in history

King David and Successors

9/11

Hack #4: The 800 Year Cycle in History

From Julius Caesar to Charles V

From Troy via Rome to Constantinople

Three wars in and around the Teutoburg Forest

On the Iberian Peninsula

Of Russians, Swedes and Goths

Of plagues, Huns and Mongols

Hack #5: Charlemagne – The Made-Up Emperor

Charles' absence in the High Middle Ages

The doubled Charles as an error of chronology

Charles I of Valois

Charles I of Anjou

The phantom reflections

The Carolingians and Biblical Israel

Emperor Augustus and Charlemagne

Sources for the fictional character of history "Charlemagne"

Hack #6: Augustus – The Made-Up First Roman Emperor

The constructed Dates of the Julian-Claudian Dynasty

Further structuring of the history of the Roman Empire

Hack #7: The New Dating of the Astronomical Reports of Antiquity

Chronology and astronomy

Example: Thucydides' three eclipses in the Peloponnesian War

The problem with Delta T

How do the delta-T values come about?

The change of Delta T

The re-dating of the eclipses

Babylonian eclipses

Hack #8: Jesus Christ on the Imperial Throne

Introduction

Jesus from the Old Testament at the beginning of our era

The Resurrected One on the Emperor's Throne

Peter on the Emperor's Throne

The Star of Bethlehem

Hack #9: The Made-Up List of Popes

Hack #10: A New Chronology of the History of Mankind

The true beginning of our era

Alexander the Great

When did Emperor Constantine the Great live?

A new chronology

List of Figures

Bibliography

Preface

Criticism of the official history and chronology has made a decisive breakthrough since the 1990s. We owe this success to authors like Anatoli Fomenko (e.g., "History: Fiction or Science?"), Gunnar Heinsohn (e.g., "How Old is the Human Race?"), Heribert Illig (e.g., "The Invented Middle Ages"), and Uwe Topper (e.g., "The Great Action").

In the new millennium, this success continued. New authors joined the ranks, such as Christoph Pfister from Switzerland (e.g., "The Matrix of Ancient History") and François de Sarre from France (e.g., "Mais où est donc passé le Moyen Âge?").

The author Mario Arndt became known for the books "The well-structured Middle Ages" (2012) and "The well-structured history" (2015). After that, six more books by him have been published. In this volume the main results of his research are presented.

History Hacking – Anything goes

Forgeries in history

"Forgeries" are a central theme in medieval studies. For example, in 1986 an international congress of the Monumenta Germaniae Historica (Institute for the Study of the Middle Ages) took place. A six-volume conference book with almost 3000 pages was published [MGH 1986].

In the very early Middle Ages, in the Frankish kingdom at the time of the Merovingian dynasty (6th-8th century), already two thirds of all royal charters are considered forgeries. During the subsequent Carolingian dynasty (8th - 10th century) almost half of all royal charters are forgeries, according to the current state of knowledge. The legal historian H. C. Faußner has proved that almost all royal charters before 1122 (Worms Concordat) are forgeries [Faußner 2003].

It is not possible to prove the authenticity of documents that have not yet been proven to be forged. However, they are traditionally referred to as "genuine" until their forgery is proven.

In addition, not all forgeries have been discovered. It is necessary to keep checking whether new fakes can be found.

Furthermore, it was stated: Since it cannot be determined a priori whether the documents really "transmit authentic contents" or not, it is also not possible to "draw conclusions about actual events" from the document contents. Whether they "transmit authentic contents" or not can only be determined by comparing them with already established facts.

Forged documents do not allow any conclusions to be drawn about the circumstances at the time of the forgery unless they are compared with facts that have already been verified. The pretense of false facts is precisely the purpose of a forgery.

There are a multitude of examples of parts of history that were once believed to be true, but are now no longer considered true by official historical scholarship.

Fig. 1: The Donation of Constantine on a fresco from 1246, Sylvester Chapel at the Basilica Santi Quattro Coronati in Rome. Constantine I (Roman emperor from 306-337) donates the western half of the Roman Empire to Pope Sylvester I. The document is a forgery. The document was exposed as a forgery in 1440.

It starts with the creation of the world in the Bible and a whole lot of stories contained in it, continues with the Greek and Roman sagas, about the former fairy-tale kings of the Swedes and Poles before the 10th century, about the failed attempts of Czech nationalists in the 19th century to invent an ancient Czech culture, about the proof of the forgery of so far two thirds of the royal documents from the Merovingian period, up to ecclesiastical forgeries - here the Constantinian Donation is probably best known. And this will go on and on.

Of course, these fabrications and forgeries no longer appear in today's history books, at best as myths, just as Aristotle's physics is no longer taught today. Therefore, many people are not even aware of them.

Scientificity in the science of history

Scientificity in itself is no proof of the rightness or wrongness of the objects investigated within the respective science. Rather, the existence of these objects is already presupposed. Therefore, historical science in its current stage of development can only contribute to a limited extent to the understanding of the time before the end of ancient Europe.

This corresponds to the current state of the science of theology, which can also contribute nothing to clarifying the question of whether or not gods and other celestial spirits actually exist.

This can easily be seen in the development of so-called "source criticism" (or information evaluation) 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.

The objection that a number of written sources from the Middle Ages would prove that the order of kings was as official history teaches, proves on close examination to be a typical argument of closed systems according to the philosopher Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994), i.e. ultimately a logical fallacy.

With this argument, someone who believes in the accuracy of the content of the Bible, for example, could also prove the creation of the world in six days. The only argument sufficient for the believer is the scriptural source for the creation of the world, the corresponding account in the Bible. He will refute all counter-arguments by claiming that the sources speak against it.

This view of the dogmatists - "All scriptural sources are genuine and what is written in them is true, unless another source speaks against it" - implies an absolute claim to truth that cannot be fulfilled. For that would mean: Everything is automatically true that is written in the written sources. With this methodology, historical science cannot arrive at viable results about the actual distant past.

Dogmatists among historians follow the same pattern. They take the position that the written sources of antiquity and the Middle Ages are all genuine until each one of them is proven to be 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 naïve, considering the now already known extent of forgeries.

The description of the creation of the world in the Bible has not been falsified by proving that the text of the Bible is a forgery. One has simply taken a more rational path to knowledge. This is precisely the path of history analysts and critics of chronology.

Fig. 3: The geocentric universe, from the "World Chronicle" by Hartmann Schedel (1493)

History according to the geometric method

Fig. 3 shows a medieval (ideal) conception of the universe with the Earth at the centre. The moon, sun and the five planets known at that time (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn) move around the earth in circular orbits. On the very outside are the fixed stars, specifically the twelve constellations of the zodiac.

However, it was known (at least since the ancient astronomer Claudius Ptolemy) that this was not actually true, because the planets were not observed to have exact circular orbits, but rather so-called epicycles (smaller circular orbits on the larger one). Circular orbits were the paradigm of the time, as they were considered the ideal form of motion, as taught by the ancient Greek philosopher and scientist Aristotle. So we see a geometrically idealised representation.

As far as time is concerned, according to Christian understanding, Jesus Christ lives in the middle of time. Is this divine destiny or a symmetrical idealisation based on religious motives? According to the Gospel of Luke, time is divided into

1) The time before Jesus Christ: the law of the Old Testament and the prophets up to John the Baptist,

2) The time of Jesus Christ as the "middle of time",

3) The time between Jesus' ascension and the beginning of the 7th world age.

Jerusalem, where he died on the cross according to the Christian view and where his tomb lies, is in the middle of the world according to the medieval view.

Fig. 4 shows the earth as an ideal conception at that time with Jerusalem in the centre. Here, too, there was a deliberate deviation from reality, as it was of course well known that the coastlines do not follow the ideal so exactly. So this is also a geometrically idealised representation.

Fig. 4: The earth with Jerusalem at its centre according to medieval, Christian conception

This naturally leads to the assumption that the representation of history in space and time could be the same as in astronomy, chronology and geography. The claim to power of the Christian kings of the Middle Ages was traced back to the creator of the world, God. According to the Christian conception, the (Holy) Roman Empire was regarded as the last world empire before the end of this world.

Therefore, according to the understanding of the time, it is obvious that the order and beauty of God's creation is reflected not only in the universe and on earth, but also in the history of the sons of Adam, and especially in the succession of God-ordained rulers of the Middle Ages.

H.W. Goetz, writing about the historian Otto von Freising and other historiographers of the High Middle Ages, states:

"Time is linear, even though it is constantly up and down. For the historiographer, it brings order to the chaos of history, so to speak. In the medieval view, however, it means finding the given (divine) order.

[...] order, on the other hand, reveals the divine plan. [...]

... but the inquisitive researcher finds - and this is the tenor hystoriae for Otto - "a well-ordered sequence of past events".“ [Goetz 1993]

Important factors in structuring the historiography were number symbolism and astrology. In this way, for example, it was determined when the city of Rome was founded. Varro (116 BCE - 27 CE) started from the fall of Troy (1193 BCE according to today's calendar), and calculated the foundation of Rome four saecula of 110 years each, i.e. 440 years later. This was for him the correct time span between death and rebirth according to astrologers. This is the year 753 BCE, which is still commonly used today.

Other examples are the date of the creation of the world or the date of the birth of the Messiah. In the Christian, European Middle Ages, the number-symbolic model was of course the Bible. The example of the "Annolied", a historical poem attributed to the 11th century (first printed in 1639 after the only manuscript that since then has disappeared), shows well how biblically influenced number symbolism structures the story presented. In this work, the numbers 3, 4, 7 and 33 play a special role.

These examples are obviously currently perceived as isolated cases in official history because the full extent is not yet known. But they are not isolated cases, but only typical examples of an idealised construction of God-ordained history according to the laws of geometry in a time with different social and religious circumstances than today.

In natural philosophy (now natural science), groundbreaking successes were achieved with the geometric method. Ideal concepts of the world were the basis for successful models that explained the world and opened up the unknown.

Johannes Kepler (1571-1630), the discoverer of the three laws of planetary motion, wrote in his book "Harmonices mundi libri V" (Five Books on the Harmonics of the World):

“I feel seized by an inexpressible rapture at the divine spectacle of heavenly harmony. For we see here how God, like a human master builder, has approached the foundation of the world according to order and rule.“

Fig. 5: God as (geometer and) creator of the universe in a manuscript from the Middle Ages

Analytics of history as system analysis

“Analytics of history exyplores the historians' models (including chronological ones), looks for errors, contradictions, seeks to correct them, to improve them, creates conditions for a better reconstruction of the past.“ [Gabowitsch 2008]

The world view at the time of antiquity and the Middle Ages was fundamentally different from today's world view. But official history has adopted the historical constructions of this time without subjecting them to a radical critique, as happened in other sciences at the beginning of the modern era.

The "Copernican turn" is still to come.

The representatives of official history have not yet achieved the "Copernican turn", thus represent a medieval world view as far as history is concerned. And this error is exposed with Analytics of history.

Their views are comparable to the views of astronomers, physicists and biologists before Copernicus, Newton and Darwin.

According to this worldview, regularities, structures and patterns in history would not be an indication or proof of falsification, but evidence of divine order.

What we now regard as impossible coincidence and therefore fabricated, would not have been recognised at all in the past or would have been regarded as evidence of a divine order. This includes a new concept of probability that emerged in the 17th century.

Aristotle still said: Chance fundamentally is beyond human knowledge and science.

The historian Otto von Freising (1112-1158) wrote in his chronicle "Chronica sive historia de duabus civitatibus" ("History of the Two States") of a "salvation-historical plan of God" in history.

The difference between the past and history

"History has a double meaning.

Firstly, it denotes what has happened [...].

Secondly, however, the word also denotes the representation of what has happened, history."

These sentences begin Heinrich Leo's "Lehrbuch der Universalgeschichte" (Textbook of Universal History) from 1839.

History is what historians have found out so far (more precisely: believe they have found out) about the past that actually happened, i.e. what is also taught at universities and schools and what is written in the historians' books. Official history, however, is only a model, an idea of the actual past, not the past itself. The model can, of course, also be wrong.

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

Knowledge about the past can only be incomplete. The further back the past lies, the more incomplete tends to be the knowledge about those times, which does not exclude the fact that there can also be periods of time about which we are better informed.

Particularly problematic is the period for which the historian Otto Brunner (1898 - 1982) coined the term "Old Europe" ("Alteuropa"), i.e. antiquity, the Middle Ages and the early modern period up to about 1800. What we think we know about these periods, especially about antiquity and the Middle Ages, comes for the most part from reading texts shaped by ideology and literature.

Only to a very small extent do we have knowledge of the supposed facts of this time through testimonies that come from the actions of those living at the time themselves (so-called "remains", "contemporary testimonies"). Here there is a decisive difference to modernity.

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

“In the practice of the historical sciences, the historiography of the Middle Ages has therefore been viewed fundamentally differently from the historiography of the modern age, without this being theoretically justified." [Schmale 1985, S.2]

Fig. 6: Model of time with present, future, past and history

History as a model of the past

However, the distinction between the past and history has not yet been generally accepted. E.g. the Egyptologist and cultural scientist Jan Assmann expressed himself thus:

“The past only comes into being by referring to it.“ [Assmann 2005, S. 31]

This is roughly equivalent to saying "If no one is looking, then the moon is not there."

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

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

I continue quoting Gabowitsch [Gabowitsch 2008]:

“I call what happened in the past the past, and I call the fruits of the historian's writing - knowledge, representation, teaching - history. We know history well, it only takes time to read it.

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

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

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