…In Rome, as in our current neocolonial enterprise, the purpose of empire was the same: …

The main issue is of course the principle of an empire. Even assuming the Roman Empire did not exist as such, the “Roman history” can be used as kind of a manual to an empire.

The Wikipedia entry on the subject sums it up in my mind: “Although Fomenko is a well-respected mathematician, his historical theories have been universally rejected by mainstream scholars, who view them as pseudoscience.” Put me down in the, “this is complete bunk” category.

…First of all, the USA is in a completely different situation that the Roman Empire. The timeframe of the collapse of the Roman Empire has about nothing to do with the timeframe of the collapse of America…

As you have understood, the strange calculation part about the collapse of the American Empire is of course a joke. Just to make the post a little less dry.

Secondly, how you draw any kind of discernable conclusion from the points you made is beyond me. You contradict yourself, saying they can’t know the date, and then saying that the dynasties occurred at similar times.

I did not explain this part enough, you are right. Read below.

Third, written histories are NOT the only artifacts we have available from the roman empire. Like, the city of Rome. Hmm.

Actualy, that is exactly the issue here. Was the city of Rome the real Rome of the Roman Empire?! How do you date an artifact in number of years before today? There are a few modern unprecise techniques, but before that, to determine an exact year, archeologists and historians relied on written records. ONLY!
Most techniques use data relative to a particular location. So a archeologist could say: “This second village was built within about 200 to 300 years after this first village in the same area”. But usualy the archeologist says: “I found a coin in a fundament wich we know is from around the year 100 BC. So the first village is from 100 BC and the second one from 200 to 300 BC”. How did he know about the date of the coin in the first place?!

Few example teqniques:
1. Artifacts of Known Age. Simple example is a coin with a date on it. From wich calendar is the date? For instance 100 years from when “our great capital was built”. When was that capital built acording to our modern calendar. And wich capital was it? Again, the written records are used.
2. Dendrochronology. Tree rings. Seems simple. The downside is that it is only accurate for multiple trees from thesame area and of course with enough undamaged rings on each one. This often proves difficult for wood that is one or few thousand years old. The dates are also relative to those trees. The problem remains: what is the absolute age of the material.
3. Radiocarbon Dating. Developed in 1949 (just 56 years ago). Most ancient history is written and most archeology is done well before that! Unfortunately this technique relies on the level of isotope Carbon-14. The level of this radioactive material is dependant on the level of cosmic radiation that is able to get through the “radiation defences” in the upper layers of the atmosphere. We can only know what the level of Carbon-14 got through the “defences” in the last several decades. What the level was 500 or 1500 yeas ago is a mistery. And yes, artifacts in museums can be and are contaminated by Carbon-14 from today. So re-dating them is unreliable. Once an artifact is out of the relative protection of the ground, it is contaminated if not handled propperly.
4. Potassium-Argon Dating is used mostly for stones with ages from a few billion to a few tens of thousands of years. Does not serve the descussed purpose.
5. There are also some more precise but experimental techniques. To be “sure” about the outcome, the results are often compared to the known “historical facts”. This realy prevents those techniques to develop properly.

Very important detail is that multiple teqniques are often used to determine the age of an artifact. For instance because the Carbon-14 technique will not give an absolute date (it will not!) the archeologist sugests a most probbable time period. The artifact is then dated acording to that relative time-window. Dating is done to the best knowledge of the person responsible in a particular team, particular country, particular time and particular level of the dating technique used. The level of C-14 in determined in different laboratories might even be similar. It is only unknown to wich absolute time this C-14 level belongs. Often the carbon analysis is not even used.

Mistaken identity of documents. For instance:
1. There are more than a few different Carthago cities mentioned around the mediteranean sea.
2. The name of the Italian city “Neapolis” means “New city” so does the Russian northern city name “Novgorod” and many other cities in the world. What will happen at translation? There is no assurance that the name will stay untranslated, or even worse, will be changed to the name as it is known to the translator from a different nation. Often neighbouring nations have different names for the same city.
3. The human behaviour stays similar everywhere, consider the following description. The “Great Leader” rode from the “New City” and conquered his foul enemies in “The King’s City” in the east. How can one be sure where this happened? This could be “Neapolis” and “Constantinopol”, but could theoreticaly even be some events from India. The middle east traded extensively with India. So ofcourse some epos and legends would be exchanged as well. In most of the world human names have a meaning. In the old days this meaning was important. Some people were known under different names.

…saying they can’t know the date, and then saying that the dynasties occurred at similar times.

Now, consider this scenario. if a medieval history writer would have three different sources, from three different countries with different names in them, written from different points of view. Those must describe different events, right? What the writer does not know is that the sources describe the same events. He first processes the first document about a “Wise Leader” who built “The Great City”. Aha, must be year 5000 according to my calendar. Then the second document about a “Great King” conquering a nation. If interpreted as a different person the second king might be squeezed in after the first king in 5025. Lets say the third document tells about a conquest by a “Great King” and then the building of a city. City was build after the conquest, this must be around 5050. So the history is now 50 years long and in a wrong sequence. It should have been: first nation conquired in 2 years; second city build there in 11 years; all this is done by the same person who ruled 15 years.
The same mistake can be done if there are three descriptions in different languages, from different points of view, with different precision, concentrating on different facts, but of the same dynasty. Those are pieces of puzzle from different boxes, giving a differen view of the same picture, and all have damaged edges and the colors are changed by time. These pieces will fit together and the picture will look acceptable.

Example of unreliability (you cann’t trust them)
1. The city of Rome has been very important in the middle ages because of the Catholic Empire (money and war). Wich city would not want to seem very ancient, to be able to say: “This city is important, it has been here forever!” Especialy if this city is an important place in some present (catholic) empire. How to achieve this? Just tell some loyal, “workaholic” monks to take some old (not even ancient) documents from SOME previous empire and rewrite them to create own important history. You must by any price impress your underlings! Some small fraude in historical texts will help make an empire stronger.
2. About the city of Rome artifact. City exists, and has some medieval Latin writings in it. High probbability that some form of settlement existed at this place for many centuries. But was this The Rome from the official history?
3. Such things happened a lot. Look at Venice. They invented a saint for their city, St. Mark. Saing this saint had a lot to do with Venice during his life. The Venicians also ruled the mediteranean for centuries and settled all around the area.

…Like, the city of Rome. Hmm.

Unsure archeological dating, unreliable documentation, high probabbility of written fraude over the centuries, interpreting of new findings by using old, wrong information from unrelyable sources. Hmm.

This isn’t to be a downer on your creativity at all — but maybe you should look into fiction writing rather than history.

I would rather want to know what really happend. I thought I knew. If you look one step beyond the iron truth of the schoolbook it seems the research is not completed yet. Should not a scientist verify the source of information? Excuse me, but who veryfied the validity of the medieval Latin historical texts?

This is not invented by me. I have not even provided concrete facts in this post. But some people can. The phenomenon is called The New Chronology. It is in fact not that new. It exists since the mainstream history has been fabricated. I do not take a very active part in it, but a good friend of mine does. I just keep my eyes open. The New Chronology has some harder facts to it’s desposition. Many New Chronologists are working seriously on the subject. Unfortunately some choose a “sensational” approach to sell their books. Just like some mainstream historians and archeologists do.

Dzint

You get bonus points for originality, but there are a few fallacies in your thinking. First of all, the USA is in a completely different situation that the Roman Empire. The timeframe of the collapse of the Roman Empire has about nothing to do with the timeframe of the collapse of America. Secondly, how you draw any kind of discernable conclusion from the points you made is beyond me. You contradict yourself, saying they can’t know the date, and then saying that the dynasties occurred at similar times. Third, written histories are NOT the only artifacts we have available from the roman empire. Like, the city of Rome. Hmm.

This isn’t to be a downer on your creativity at all — but maybe you should look into fiction writing rather than history.

Just some things about the “Roman Empire”

1. There are no original writings known to us left from the Roman Empire.
2. The “history” of the Roman Empire is written in Latin…
Latin has been a life (used), medieval language.
3. If the times of rule of the three “dynasties” of the Empire are compared, it seems the rulers of the three diferent dinasties are almost identical. (1st ruler 1st dinasty very-very similar to 1st ruler of 2nd and 3rd dinasties, etc.)
4. The dates in the Empire history are sometimes precise to a DAY and more than a few times contradicting. This exaggerated precision makes the works unreliable. Especialy for something that existed MANY hundreds of years before.
5. According to what calendar have the writers made their works and according to what calendars have the original works been written? There have been a whooooole lot of different calenders in the times past. Of many (if not most) written dates it is unsure acording to wich calender it was meant. “The year of our Lord 6678″ is a bad indicator. And surely a bad suggestion to a medieval writer. Those were often monks, who knew very well in what year the world was created (at least according to their own medieval religious stream).

To SUM UP: Somewhere in the medieval times (to some speculations even as late as 17th century), someone (suposedly 2 French monks) transcribed the history of SOME Empire. They were very driven should be admitted, calculating all the events and dates to one day precision (many modern people could use some of this persistence ). There were “some” major mistakes made in the total timeline of the events. It can be assumed, that some missing facts were “filled in” (fabricated?).

And now the Empire of the United States.
As Jason mentions, the Roman Empire lasted about 500 years. Let us asume taking the above analysis into account that the described Empire lasted one third of the official history time, thus 167 years. Ok, let it even be 200 or even 300 years.

What later became the USA officialy gained it’s independance from Britain in the year 1776. That is 229 years before 2005. Well over either 167 or 200 year boundary. It is also one average western lifetime before the 300 year boundary. Oops

Isn’t analysis FUN?!

Grounded critics are more than welcome!

Dzint