I have fallen in the "Roman history is fake rabbit hole"

I have fallen in the "Roman history is fake rabbit hole"

I don't want to sound like a schizo, but did most knowledge of antiquity come form sleazy italian merchants that just so happened to find le ancient moldy book in some forsaken church and conveniently sold it for big cash to the pope and other shitalians??

  1. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >did most knowledge of antiquity come form sleazy italian merchants that just so happened to find le ancient moldy book in some forsaken church and conveniently sold it for big cash to the pope and other shitalians??
    No

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      then were did it come from??

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        Byzantium, Arabia, North-africa, all of the former roman empire. Basically the entire known world. How would you, from a standpoint of Fomenko or whoever, explain the descriptions of Rome in (for instance) ancient chinese literature? I love conspiracy as much as the next guy, but any conspiracy requires centralization. You cannot conspire to alter world history unless you control the world entire. No group of people (no not even the israelites) have controlled all of world history since the middle ages.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          >How would you, from a standpoint of Fomenko or whoever, explain the descriptions of Rome in (for instance) ancient chinese literature?
          all of fomenko's works are available free. you can easily see what he has to say. There are better researchers than him imo though.

          Fomenko and others have noticed the strange parallels in chinese history to european history. This is explained by missionaries bringing over books about european history and then translating them into chinese. due to the structure of the chinese language once something is translated it becomes thoroughly chinese and it is not apparent it is a translation.

          > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDxCU50D7xU

          it is a mistake to beleive other cultures valued the idea of "history" the same way as europeans did. even then, history started as a way for kings and the church to lay claim to territory and was fabricated by them. only when europeans arrived in new areas and showed the rulers the idea of history and how it can be used for political purposes did foreign rulers decide to start writing down "history."

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            >due to the structure of the chinese language once something is translated it becomes thoroughly chinese and it is not apparent it is a translation.
            Jesse what the fuck are you talking about?

  2. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    What's your country of origin OP?

  3. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >I have fallen in the "Roman history is fake rabbit hole"

    >I don't want to sound like a schizo
    Too late

  4. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    There is enough archaeological evidence that the Roman Empire existed, from coins, weapons, to entire buildings and even cities spread through the areas that it was said that Rome controlled

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's not that, but we know for a fact that some of the renaissance era artists just wrote bullshit about Rome, to sell for a high price. Like they wrote up some memoirs of a Roman emperor and then peddled it as it were real.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        And historians have enough sources to analyze these things and realize that they're fake

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It's not that, but we know for a fact that some of the renaissance era artists just wrote bullshit about Rome, to sell for a high price. Like they wrote up some memoirs of a Roman emperor and then peddled it as it were real.
        If this happened so often, surely you've got some examples of this happening, where it's been rejected, or especially, where it's been accepted?
        Your premise is on the level of
        >I don't want to sound like a schizo but how do we know gnomes don't control the world's gold supply by only allowing various veins and nodes to appear to certain people at controlled points? We know that gnomes have been written about and have been obsessed with gold, so who says they didn't share the knowledge of gold veins with some people in exchange for their continued secrecy?

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          holy fuck a gnome analogy I never thought I could see one in the wild

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      Planted fakes by the Vatican to give them legitimacy over Europe.

  5. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    I’ll goa step further and say that anything before 1500s was 100% invented. The Christian golden age of the Middle Ages were buried by butthurt israelites who invented Islam. The Bible was reinvented to be israelite friendly

  6. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Ockam's razer

  7. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yep there is a good piece on how all these "ancient" manuscripts were coicendetly discovered by known forgers.

    https://blog.plan99.net/meta-historical-conspiracies-part-1-2e88f08d6617

    > That after Rome fell people collectively and completely forgot vast amounts of useful knowledge, despite the existence of books which contained that knowledge in great detail.

    > Enormous amounts of what we know about ancient Rome can be traced only to books that had one single copy in the entire known world.

    > These books were discovered rotting and decaying in dungeons, owned by monks who didn’t know or care about them despite having spent 1500 years faithfully copying them at great expense.

    > Despite the staggering monetary value of what these monks had, despite the enormous poverty they lived in, and despite that rewards for finding these works were publicly announced by the Pope himself, none of them ever exploited their own treasure troves. Every book I’ve investigated so far that claims to originate in Roman times was recovered by a secular humanist from the ignorant monks who guarded it.

    > Despite that these books contained enormous detail on practical matters like how to construct buildings and aqueduct systems, they were entirely forgotten about until the very moment they happened to start being useful. Most of these books were never referred to by medieval authors up until the moment of their ‘rediscovery’.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      What about stuff that the Arabs preserved? Mostly mean Plato and Aristotle, themselves in turn quoting Presocratics. Was that forged?

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      This is what a result of the decline of philology. If you could actually read the ancient text you wouldn't have this inability to approach the texts. The idea that some forgers invented a thousand years of linguistic nuance and evolution is obvioulsly ridiculous. Large scale forgeries could easily be detected as stemming from a common linguistic source.

      Consider, as a case study, the silver-bible, written in the 400s in a gothic language with no clear paralells until medieval scandinavia. Did the catholic forger of the silver-bible predict, with exactitude, how people in another part of the world would speak in a thousand years? It's just completely idiotic. Forgeries are primitive, human beings are not competent enought to produce convincing forgeries even on a small scale.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Consider, as a case study, the silver-bible, written in the 400s in a gothic language with no clear paralells until medieval scandinavia.
        I don't think you are understanding the argument. It is much more plausible that that bible was simply written in the medieval or middle ages when that language was widely spoken and then backdated. The motivation to do so would be to give the church more legitimacy.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      >That after Rome fell people collectively and completely forgot vast amounts of useful knowledge, despite the existence of books which contained that knowledge in great detail.
      see pic

      • 3 months ago
        lol

        The Byzantines quite famously could not repair their aqueducts after the Avars, i think, smashed them despite having all their books and many literate people. Took them more than a hundred years to make it work again.

  8. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    >but did most knowledge of antiquity come form sleazy italian merchants that just so happened to find le ancient moldy book
    No. Most of our sources were consistently reproduced ever since they were first written like Caesar, most of Cicero, Livy, Suetonius, Tacitus, Ammianus, Historia Augusta and the like both in West and East. Basically our main 'canon' of Classics we have today are the same as which people had in the 13th century. We do have more thanks to those discoveries but it's not like they were really fabricating history even if they were.

  9. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Take meds or kill yourself, amerilard

  10. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    So how did Italians fake the ancient Persian and Chinese records mentioning Rome?

  11. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    most the maps are just cope and are colored red. for example, rome never fully controlled Sardinia at any point, yet Sardinia is colored in on all maps of rome. the roman republic and empire was really just a massive network of pocketed towns with vaste swaths of territory being de facto independent

  12. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    You know theres buildings all throught europe and north africa to prove this wrong, this isn't some sort of myth tier culture of which we only have text accounts of. And if you are going to argue some absurd mass hellenization thing, how do you explain all the Latin inscriptions that can be found at those sites. And the common currency too.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      In fact, monuments/statues apart (that concidentally happen to depict things all those moldy books the fraudsters found talked about) weren't spome roman buiildings built by blueprint? Roman roads for one must be very consistent throught the empire.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      All "ancient" Roman/Greek buildings are 18th-20th century reconstructions or outright hoaxes.

      • 3 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castillo_de_Sant%27Angelo
        This isn't a reconstruction, it has been in use since the middle ages as a fort, it was hadrians mausoleum.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Pont du gard in the early 18th century, and yes of course it was in a bad states, a 1000+ pplus of near neglect does that.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Fick I mean 19th. the year is 1808 I got confused.

            • 3 months ago
              Anonymous

              Pont du gard in the early 18th century, and yes of course it was in a bad states, a 1000+ pplus of near neglect does that.

              Trajans column, which survives to this day.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                There was a Russian researcher who anaylzed ancient sites and came to the conclusion that they were hoaxed using geopolymer (concrete).

                > https://gorojanin-iz-b.livejournal.com/
                This was his site but it just got taken down in the last couple of days,

                He talked about Trajan's Column.

                It appears that in the 18th and 19th century historians and archeologists were out to verify Scaligerian chronology and the bible and so forged the existence of ancient civilizations in accordance with what renaissance era forgers wrote.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                A classic case of
                >Another schizo? This lends credence to my own schizo theories!

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                So how did they replicate the hundreds of archaeological sites that get excavated in random fields across Europe every year? Or forge the results of OSL dates that confirm the ages of strata with Roman finds in them?

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Any answer that isn't "time-travelling secret organization" is false

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                Man. This 18-19th centery forgers are so much more advanced than modern science. They even can make artificial, sandstone, granit, marble, highlrr eroded, wood, leather and metal, even ancient DNA and carbon ratios . Just to proof the bible.

              • 3 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's widely accepted that romans knew and used concrete.

        • 3 months ago
          Anonymous

          Many "ancient roman" sites were built in medieval or middle ages and subsequently converted into "ancient" sites in the 19th and 20th centuries to attract tourists and money.

          > The Arles Amphitheater is an example of this. What was simply a fortified French town with walls was demolished and turned into an "Amphitheater" to make money.

          • 3 months ago
            Anonymous

            Don't you really see this drawing and not clearly recognize its the oppose, and ancient buildint repurposed in the middle ages as a fortress, here is an 18th century illustration of the thing, long before any reconstruction work. Its very clearly a repurposed ancient ruin.
            Also the town of arles is much bigger than that little fotress

  13. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    It is probably one of the most imminently visible civilizational phenomena of all time. Indelible on language, society, culture and even the material world of modern Europe in the form of surviving edifices. Of course some one on this board would fall for the "it never happened" meme. I hate this place and my life.

  14. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most knowledge of antiquity was transcribed by monks at some point to preserve what knowledge was transcribed by paid government scribes before them, and temple workers before them. It's just an endless game of telephone with a bit of exaggeration sprinkled in here and there to serve the needs of who was in power. Unironically the monks were probably the most truthful to the sources they were working with.

  15. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    We are lucky most LULZ trolls are usually too lazy to research the truly schizo stuff out there.
    New Chronology/Récentisme requires a bit of reading before, something which most internet users don't do. You need someone to propagate the idea in an easily digestible form, something a secret service might do with only propaganda

    From what I have seen I doubt it the theory has any support from any secret services since it is very slow to spread on the internet. Russian themselves don't find it useful.

  16. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    So the question is
    What is real is that is fake?
    What actually did exist and what happened to it?

  17. 3 months ago
    Anonymous

    Anybody else want to see New Chronology become more well-known just to see the chaos it would cause in mainstream media all around the world?
    I know it's bullshit but imagine the mayhem and all the disputes it would cause.
    And it would outrage pretty much all nations and factions in the world.

    • 3 months ago
      Anonymous

      No because I am tired of schizos and their bullshit. Please invent some Iran or China falsified history and preach it to the thirdies, the only schizos I can stand are the ones creating thirdie seethe.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *