1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

13. The mediaeval 300 knights of Duke Jean de la Roche as the famous 300 Spartans of king Leonidas

One of the most famous and romantic episodes of the “ancient” wars between the Greeks and the Persians is the battle between 300 fearless Spartans and the Persian troops of Xerxes at Thermopylae in the alleged year 480 b.c. Could Thermopylae have really been approached by the White Russian army led by someone titled “Herzog”, or “King of the Cossacks”? The tragic death of the 300 Spartans and their king Leonidas became glorified by countless artists; one should expect the very same episode to surface in the mediaeval history of the XIII-XIV century a.d. in some shape. Indeed, we find such a passage as soon as we turn to the book of Gregorovius ([195]). Furthermore, this battle isn’t merely related by mediaeval scribes, but also pointed out as parallel to the “ancient” battle of Thermopylae, no less, qv below.

Let us use the method that already proved itself worthwhile and shift the datings by 1810 years. However, we are suddenly running into a void result, since we find no battle fought by 300 Spartans in 1330 a.d. (the date that the alleged year 480 b.c. transforms into). This is the first time the 1810-year chronological shift, whose vivid manifestations we were witnessing over a period of several centuries, fails us. What could possibly be the matter here? Let us recollect that according to the results related in Chapter 6 of Chron1, the 1810-year shift sometimes manifests as a shift of 1800 or 1778 years. Let us just a little bit further backwards in time. We immediately come across the 300 Spartan heroes!

It turns out that another ducal figure had been active somewhat earlier than Duke Walther, but still at the end of the XIII century a.d. – namely, in 1275. We are referring to Duke Jean de la Roche (John Rush or Ivan the Russian?) Once again we see the ducal title, which can be interpreted as “Herzog” (Xerxes?) His story is as follows. The Turks (TRK/PRS), aided by the Greeks and the Cumans, have besieged the town of Neopatria. Sebastocrator had fled Neopatria, made his way through Thermopylae and addressed Jean de la Roche (Ivan the Russian?) with a plea for help. The duke (Xerxes?) decided to support Sebastocrator and set forth to march through Thermopylae ([195], page 188 (17). Thus, the famous Thermopylae are mentioned in both accounts – the one by Herodotus telling us about the “ancient” Xerxes, and the mediaeval version featuring Jean de la Roche (Ivan the Russian?)

68a. The Byzantine and Turkish invasion into Greece in the XIV century a.d. General Senadenos, the double of the “ancient” Xerxes, invades Thessalia in this episode leading “an unusually large army”. He also gets naval support ([195], page 188 (17). Greece is invaded by the Byzantine and the Turkish (PRS) troops.

68b. “Ancient” Greece. The invasion of the Persians. A large host of the Persians (P-Russians?) led by Xerxes invades Greece, supported by an enormous fleet. In this local episode Xerxes most probably acts as the reflection of General Senadenos, whereas his opponent, King Leonidas of Sparta, doubles Jean de la Roche (Ivan the Russian?).

69a. The three hundred knights of Jean de la Roche in the XIV century a.d. Jean de la Roche, “accompanied by three hundred knights, all of them well-armed”, meets the onslaught of the tremendous army consisting of the Greeks, the Turks and the Cumans ([195], page 188 (18)). It is possible that the word “Cuman” was used for referring to the mounted troops (cf. the Russian word for cavalry, “konniki”). A violent battle rages, and the Duke defeats his enemy (Xerxes being a duke once again). A propos, amongst the numbers of the three hundred knights there were also “the noble Saint-Omers [Homers, or the Ottoman Omars? – A. F.]” ([195], page 188 (17)).

69b. “Ancient” Greece. King Leonidas and his three hundred Spartans. Leonidas, King of Sparta, faces the gigantic army of the Persians (P-Russians?) at Thermopylae with his three hundred Spartans ([258], page 190). Both the “ancient” and the mediaeval version specify an equal number of warriors – three hundred! The battle is fierce, and the forces are uneven. The “ancient” Xerxes defeats the Spartans, but pays very dearly for this victory.

Commentary. This mediaeval battle of three hundred knights against the superior forces of the enemy can be safely identified as the “ancient” stand made by the three hundred Spartans. There is the following episode to confirm it. It is reported that “at the sight of the numerous ranks of the enemy, he [the Duke – A. F.] had exclaimed the following, addressing one of his frightened allies: ‘great are their numbers, but few of them are true men’” ([195], page 188 (18)).

Now, any cognoscente of ancient history shall instantly recognize these words as the ones used by Herodotus in reference to Xerxes. To quote the exact words of Herodotus: “One can say that it became clear to everyone, the king [Xerxes – A. F.] himself in particular, that the Persians are great in their numbers, but true men [in their ranks] are far and few” ([163], 7:210, page 369). What we find here is the description of the battle between Xerxes and the Hellenes immediately before the battle of Thermopylae. Scaligerian history tries to persuade us that the XIV century duke had been a man of such brilliant and outstanding education that, when he “accidentally” wound up in the vicinity of Thermopylae, and was taking part in a battle oddly resembling the “ancient” battle between Xerxes and the 300 Spartans, he couldn’t help delivering a perfectly fortuitous quote from the “ancient Herodotus”, who wrote about this very battle!

It is understandable that this vivid parallel (which should seem most peculiar to a modern historian) instantly drew the attention of F. Gregorovius, who gives the following commentary that pretty much suggests itself: “It appears to me that these words [of the mediaeval duke – A. F.] were borrowed from Herodotus, VII:210, the episode when Xerxes learns that ‘the ranks of the Persians are great, but there are few true men amongst them’. However, the Duke may have recollected this dictum while witnessing the [similar – A. F.] disposition” ([195], page 188(18), comment 3).

One might wonder what exactly can be perceived as strange about the entire matter. Weren’t mediaeval knights well-read and highly educated people, after all, and could they possibly find anything better to do than to adopt a dignified stance and recite appropriate passages from the immortal œuvres of the “ancient” authors whenever they got in the vicinity of Thermopylae, in the middle of a violent battle, accompanied by clanging armour and neighing horses?

We are of the opinion that the explanation is altogether different. It is most likely that the mediaeval battle of 300 knights at Thermopylae in 1275 a.d. became reflected in several mediaeval chronicles, among others – the History of Herodotus, where it had transformed into the battle of 300 Spartans against Xerxes, King of Persia. Thus, Herodotus couldn’t have written his book earlier than the end of the XIII century a.d. – most probably, in the XV-XVI century.

Let us return to the battle. “He [the Duke – A. F.] darted towards the enemy camp, scattered the army of Palaiologos and secured a brilliant victory. The town of Neopatria [Neo-Sparta? - A. F.] was freed, and the fleeing enemy had to withdraw from Thessalia” ([195], page 188 (18)). The respective datings of 1275 a.d. and 480 b.c. are separated by a virtual period of 1755 years. This approximates the value of the chronological shift – 1778 years, or 1800-1810 years. We see that the shift value varies from source to source. However, these aberrations are rather minute as compared to the value of the actual shift, which equals almost two millennia.

We already pointed out that the historian Ferdinand Gregorovius – a connoisseur of the “antiquity” and a reputable specialist in mediaeval history, often points out peculiar “revivals of the antiquity” in the Middle Ages, or duplicate parallels, in other words. However, since he was raised on the Scaligerian chronology, he could not understand the nature of such occurrences and was thus limited to a mere constatation of facts, and a timid one at that, coming to no conclusions whatsoever.

For instance, we have already mentioned the fact that the “ancient” Persians aren’t merely a reflection of the French (or the Franks), but also duplicate the Ottoman Turks and the Tartars. The first half of the XIV century in Greek history correlates with the history of “ancient” Greece well enough to make Gregorovius point our another parallel with the epoch of Darius (of the Horde?) and Xerxes (“Herzog”, or the Cossack Czar?).

“One dark night in 1354… Suleiman [the Ottoman whose deeds were also partially reflected in the biography of Xerxes – A. F.], the valiant son of Orkhan had… crossed the Hellespont… this is where the Turks had made their first confident steps on the European soil. The Byzantines compared this invading horde [mark the word “Horde” here – A. F.] to the Persians, often using that very name for referring to them [! - A. F.] However, the Ottomans were more terrifying than the nation of Darius and Xerxes, and their luck had been greater” ([195], page 252). This parallel indicated by F. Gregorovius is perfectly apropos.

Let us draw the reader’s attention to yet another interesting fact. As we can see, the mediaeval Byzantines had called the Turks Persians. It was the later commentators who began to replace the latter word for the former en masse in Byzantine texts; otherwise, the picture we get shows us the “ancient” Persians being exceptionally industrious in the Middle Ages, which the Scaligerian history just cannot possibly permit.

“The relentless expansion of the Turkish invaders continued as they swarmed across the Greek seas; all of this was beginning to look like a historical refluence of Asia to Europe” ([195], page 244). Gregorovius continues to draw parallels between the XIV-XV century invasion of the Ottoman Turks, and that of the “ancient” Persians (P-Russians?). “The Greeks and the Franks were still aquiver at the thought of the horrendous ruler of the Asians who could yet expand the borders of his domain so as to include the entire Europe” ([195], page 302).

Let us once again ask the question of whether “Darius” could be an alias for the Horde, and Xerxes either a ducal title (“Herzog”), or a corruption of “Czar of the Cossacks”.

The “ancient” = mediaeval Graeco-Persian wars cease here. We carry on moving forwards along the “ancient” time axis, regarding it through the prism of an 1810-year temporal shift. The next famous “ancient” Greek event is the Peloponnesian War of the alleged years 431-404 a.d. as described in detail by the “ancient” Thucydides ([923]).