1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

17. The mediaeval despotate of Mystras as the “ancient” Sparta

We have reached a breakpoint in the “ancient” Greek history – the elevation of the belligerent Sparta after the Peloponnesian War. A shift of 1810 years forward shall bring us to a similar breakpoint in the history of the mediaeval Greece, namely, the epoch when the militarized state of the Navarrans and the despotate of Mystras gain prominence after the war of the XIV century a.d., which, as we already understand, is most probably the prototype of the Peloponnesian War.

Both events demonstrate a perfect mutual superimposition on the time axis after a shift of 1800-1810 years. Indeed, the end of the “ancient” Peloponnesian War in the alleged year 404 b.c. moves into the vicinity of 1400 a.d. as a result of the shift, which is the time when the war and strife in mediaeval Greece finally come to an end (see more about the death of Nerio in 1394 and the end of the war above).

94a. The elevation of the Navarrans and the despotate of Mystras in the XV century a.d.

The epoch of the elevation of the Navarran state and the Despotate of Mystras starting with the end of the war (roughly 1400 a.d.) and ending with the Ottoman Empire gathering strength in the middle of the XV century covers the period of about 50 years between 1400 and 1450 a.d.

94b. “Ancient” Greece. The elevation of Sparta. The period of Sparta’s elevation begins at the end of the Peloponessian War and ends with Macedonia gaining prominence in the middle of the IV century a.d. This period also covers about 50 years between the alleged years 400 and 350 b.c. Textbooks on “ancient” Greek history usually call it “the domination of Sparta” ([766], page 206), or “the Spartan Hegemony” ([258], page 400). Both periods (the “ancient” and the mediaeval) correspond to each other perfectly after a 1800-1810 year shift.

95a. The pressure of the Ottomans in the XV century a.d. The Ottomans, who later become known as the Turks, begin to menace Greece in particular and Europe in general after a brief period of peace. Manuel II, the Greek emperor of Byzantium, “was devoting his utmost diligence to the construction of the Hexamilion, the wall across Isthmia, which he began to build with the aid of the Venetians. The Greeks thought that such an obstacle would make Peloponnesus impenetrable for the foe, as it had been once, in the time of the Persian invasion [sic! – A. F.]” ([195], page 306).

Once again we see a superimposition of the “ancient Persians” (P-Russians?) over the Ottomans. The following is reported:

“When Northern Hellas had already been occupied by the Turks, and the cloud of doom was spreading over the entire Byzantium, the last remnants of Greek statehood were collected in Peloponnesus and not Attica… the gravity centre of the Greek monarchy… returned to its terminus a quo – the land of Pelops… Mystras, or Sparta [sic! - A. F.] became the political and spiritual stronghold of Hellenism in this epoch” ([195], page 307).

95b. “Ancient” Greece. The Persian pressure. The Persian menace grows. After the weakening of the Persian menace as a result of fortune favouring the Greeks in the Graeco-Persian wars of the alleged years 400-350 b.c., Persia (P-Russia?) becomes a danger for Greece once again. We see yet another superimposition of the Ottoman Turks over the Persians. “The struggle between Sparta and Persia for domination in the Eastern part of Hellas saved the Greek world from complete and long-term subjugation to the Spartan rule” ([258], page 401).

The period when the “ancient” Persia began to meddle in Greek affairs is dated to the alleged year 394 b.c. when the Persians destroyed the Peloponnesian fleet. “Thus, along with the enfeeblement of Sparta we witness a significant increase in Persian influence over Greece” ([258], page 408). The Corinthian Isthmus was fortified to a great extent in order to prevent the impending invasion [sic! – A. F.]” ([258], page 408). The “ancient” Sparta is characterized as a state “rigidly confined to the territory of Peloponnesus” ([258], page 409). It is significant that “the Isthmian [sic! – A. F.] line of allied defence” plays a special role here, as it did in the Middle Ages ([258], page 408).

Commentary. The spectacular temporal collocation of the “ancient” and mediaeval reports of the key role played by the Isthmian line of defence deserves a more detailed coverage of how this grandiose mediaeval fortification was built in the XV century a.d.

“Thousands of workers were involved in the creation of this Cyclopean construction… a tremendous wall grew between the two seas, complete with fosses, two fortresses and 153 fortified towers… the allies were amazed by this structure as though it compared to the famous bulwarks of Hadrian” ([258], page 307). Could the name Hadrian be related to the name Horde, or Hordean in some way?

18. The Turkish Ottoman Empire as the “ancient” Macedon. Sultan Mohammed I as the “ancient” Philip II

We have finally reached the period that marks the end of independent political history of the “ancient” Greece.

96a. The Mohammedans in the XV century a.d. as a new power. The hegemony of Peloponnesus and the despotate of Mystras/Sparta come to an end in the middle of the XV century a.d. A new formidable power emerges – the Ottomans, who later become known as the Turks. They swarm over Byzantium as a result of expansion in mid-XV century, which ends the history of mediaeval Greece and Byzantium as independent states in the second half of the XV century. We thus observe the Ottomans (who are considered Mohammedans nowadays) become a new political and military power. They are also the masters of Turkey.

96b. “Ancient” Greece. The Macedonians as a new power. The hegemony of Sparta ceases to exist in the middle of the alleged IV century b.c. It is replaced by a new authority – Macedon. The second half of the alleged IV century b.c. (around the alleged years 350-320 b.c.) is known in history textbooks as the period of “Macedonian elevation” ([766], page 270). The Macedonian age marks the end of the “ancient” Greece as an independent political formation. Thus, we see a new military and political power on the historical arena – the Macedonians. One cannot fail to notice the obvious similarity between the names: Macedonians and Mohammedans, Macedon (or Mahedonia) and Mohammedia – possibly derived from the name Mahomet or Mohammed. Alternatively, Mace-Donia refers to “the Great Don”, or “the Great River”, qv in Chron5. Macedonia is located in Thracia (TRK-land). It is perfectly obvious that Thracia and Turkey are two versions of the same name (bear in mind the flexion of T and Th).

97a. The rise of the Ottoman influence in the XV century a.d. Towards the end of the XV century both Greece and Byzantium lose influence very rapidly. Modern history textbooks describe the epoch in sepulchral tones: “A cloud of peril was looming over Byzantium” ([195], page 307).

A consistent invasion of the Ottomans (Atamans?) into Byzantium and Greece begins in 1446 a.d. All attempts of resisting them prove futile. “This was the last great mobilization of Greek powers, and, just as it had been in the days of Xerxes [the Duke, or the King of the Cossacks? – A. F.], they were facing the barbaric Asia ready to dart towards the Peloponnesus” ([195], page 346).

97b. “Ancient” Greece. The elevation of Macedon. “The international situation was favouring Macedon the most, and it was gradually expanding its rule onto the Thracian coast and towards the centre of Greece. By the middle of the IV century [b.c. – A. F.], a large part of the Hellenistic world was subjected to the hegemony of the Macedonian kings. The Athenian maritime union split up in the War of the Allies (357-355). Even Sparta, let alone other poleis, could provide no substantial resistance to Macedon” ([766], pages 270-271).

Commentary. A shift of 1810 years makes the mediaeval dating of 1446 a.d. correspond with the “ancient” year 364 b.c. There is thus good chronological concurrence between the elevation of the Ottomans and the Macedonians.

98a. The Ottoman Sultan Mohammed II in the XV century a.d. Sultan Mohammed II (Mehmet II according to [240]), the famous Ottoman ruler, was called “the Conqueror” (see figs. 3.6 and 3.7). An ancient portrait of Mohammed II can be seen in fig. 3.8. “The Turkish sultan founded the vast Mohammedan empire among the ruins of Byzantium, on the graves of formerly prosperous civilized nations” ([195], page 359). As a result, mediaeval Greece had completely disappeared from the political arena as an independent power.

Fig. 3.6 Large medal portraying Mohammed II, conqueror of Constantinople. Front side. Taken from [304], Volume 2, pages 516-517, inset.

Fig. 3.7 Medal portraying Mohammed II, reverse. Original kept in the Royal Münzkabinet, Berlin ([304], Volume 2, pages 516-517, inset.

Fig. 3.8. An ancient portrait of Sultan Mohammed (Mehmet) II (1432-1481). One should pay attention to the three royal crowns on the right and on the left. They might symbolize the Evangelical Magi (see Chron6 for more details). We see that Mohammed II is dressed in furs. Taken from [1206], p. 2.

It has to be said that Scaligerian history never fails to emphasize the allegedly negative historical role of the Ottomans, their presumed barbarity, failure to comprehend European values etc. It is constantly reiterated that they’re to blame for the decline of the flourishing European civilization on conquered territories. In Chron5 and Chron6 we shall discuss the reasons for such an unfavourable portrait of the Ottomans that we find on the pages of Scaligerian history textbooks. History according to Scaliger and Miller even managed to distort the information about the physical appearance of the mediaeval Ottomans starting with the XVII century. In fig. 3.9 we see a mediaeval illustration to the “hagiography of St. Alexiy, the Muscovite Metropolitan, written by Pakhomiy Lagofet in the XVI century” ([578], Book 2, page 16). The title of the illustration is as follows: “The Turks Massacre the Christians and Seal up the Temples of Our Lord”. This mediaeval drawing of the Ottomans is drastically different from their image as presented to us by the Scaligerian history. The illustration shows us the Ottomans dressed as typical mediaeval Europeans, dressed in urban European clothes and wearing hats with broad brims. They are armed with straight-edged European swords and not curved scimitars.

Fig. 3.9 Mediaeval illustration entitled “The Turks Massacre the Christians and Seal up the Temples of Our Lord”. Taken from “The Hagiography of St. Alexiy, the Muscovite Metropolitan, written by Pakhomiy Lagofet in the XVI century” ([578], Book 2, page 16). The mediaeval Ottomans look perfectly European here – wearing urban clothing from the Middle Ages, with broad-brimmed hats on their heads, and armed with straight-edged swords instead of scimitars.

Apparently, many European armaments were brought to Europe by the Tartars/Turks. The so-called tarch shields, for instance, were introduced in the XIV century – the handheld tarches (“handtartsche”), which were “usually employed in attack. Another armament that came into use was the breast tarch (“brusttartsche”), brought from the Orient to Hungary, which had introduced it to other Occidental states, which is why this shield is also called the Hungarian tarch” ([264], Book 2, page 10). The name “tarch” may be a corruption of the word “Turk”, or “Turkish”. Typical examples of handheld and breast tarches can be seen in fig. 3.10.

Fig. 3.10 Warrior shields that became popular in Europe due to Oriental influence, according to historians. We see a handheld tarch on the left and breast tarches on the right. Taken from [264], Book 2, page 10.

98b. “Ancient” Greece. Philip II, King of Macedon. The famous Macedonian King Philip II was “the true founding father of the Macedonian state… towards the middle of the IV century Macedon had undergone the transformation from a provincial semi-barbaric state of secondary importance into a first-class superpower claiming its right for world hegemony, which it had subsequently achieved” ([766], pages 271-272). As a result, Greece had ceased to exist as an independent political formation.

99a. The enthronement of Sultan Mohammed II in the XV century a.d. Mohammed II becomes enthroned in 1451 a.d. ([195], page 347).

99b. “Ancient” Greece. The enthronement of Philip II. Philip II comes to power in the alleged year 359 b.c. ([766], page 271). A shift of 1810 years transforms the “ancient” dating of 359 b.c. into the year 1451 a.d., which is the year of Mohammed’s enthronement. We see an ideal concurrence of ancient and mediaeval dates after the shift.

100a. The Middle Ages in the XV century a.d. The reign duration of Mohammed II. Mohammed II was enthroned at the age of 21 ([195], page 347). He had reigned for 30 years ([76]).

100b. “Ancient” Greece. The reign duration of Philip II. Philip II was enthroned at the age of 23 ([258], page 476), which is very close to the age of Mohammed II. Philip II had reigned for 24 years between the alleged years 359 and 336 b.c. ([258], page 476). Their reign durations are also similar.

101a. Mohammed II is an Ottoman. The Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire is supposed to have been founded in 1298 (or in 1299-1300) by Osman I = Ottoman I ([76]; also [797], page 940). All the subsequent Sultan rulers including Mohammed II are called Ottomans. The unvocalized transcription of the name is TTMN, or TMN.

101b. “Ancient” Greece. Philip II, the son of Amyntas. Philip II is the son of Amyntas ([258], page 462). Amyntas is a family name; there were several kings called Amyntas among the predecessors of Philip II ([76]). The unvocalized transcription of Amyntas is MNT; this is the name used for the entire dynasty of Macedonian kings in this epoch. We see that the only difference between the names MNT (Amyntas) and TMN (Ottoman) is the direction in which they are read. The Europeans read from left to right, whereas the contrary is true for the Arabs and the Jews. This may have resulted in the same name read as two different ones; we have witnessed this effect in action many a time already.

102a. The duration of the Ottoman Empire’s existence. The history of the Ottoman (Ataman?) empire before Mohammed II spans the period between 1298 and 1451 a.d., the year of his enthronement. The Empire came to existence in 1298 ([76]). Thus, it had existed for 153 years before Mohammed II.

102b. “Ancient” Greece. The duration of the Macedonian statehood. The history of Macedon before Philip II covers the period of 540-359 b.c. Philip II became enthroned in the alleged year 359 b.c. Therefore, the history of Macedonian statehood before Philip II covers the interval of roughly 180 years ([76]). The respective durations of 153 and 180 years are similar enough, which confirms the parallelism. Apart from that, both periods demonstrate good mutual concurrence after an 1810-year shift. In particular, the foundation of the mediaeval Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire in 1298 a.d. ends in the second half of the alleged VI century b.c. after the shift, which is when the “ancient” kingdom of Macedon was founded.

103a. The mediaeval Ottoman I. Ottoman I is the founder of the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire ([76]).

103b. “Ancient” Greece. Amyntas I. Amyntas I is presumed to have been the founder of the Macedonian kingdom ([72], page 195). The names Ottoman (TMN) and Amyntas (MNT) only differ in reading direction.

104a. Mohammed II instigates the creation of a gigantic empire in the XV century a.d. A new era in the history of the Ottoman (Ataman?) empire begins with Mohammed II. This is when the powerful Eurasian state comes to existence ([195]).

104b. “Ancient” Greece. Philip II initiates the creation of the Macedonian Empire. Philip II brings forth a new phase in the history of Macedon, initiating the creation of the great Macedonian Empire in Europe and Asia. The process is brought to completion by Alexander the Great ([258]).

105a. The fall of Constantinople in 1453 a.d. In 1453 a.d. one of the key events in world history takes place – the Ottomans capture Constantinople, which marks the fall of Byzantium ([195]).

105b. “Ancient” Greece. The secession of Byzantium in the alleged year 364 b.c. An important event of Greek history takes place in the alleged year 364 b.c., namely, the “secession of Byzantium” ([766], page 353). A shift of 1810 years turns the “ancient” year 364 b.c. into 1446 a.d., which is in the immediate temporal vicinity of 1453, the year Byzantium fell. The concurrence of the “ancient” and mediaeval datings is excellent.

106a. The Ottomans and the Mohammedans in the XV century a.d.

1. 
   Sultan Mohammed II is the leader of the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire, which was also known as Turkey, or TRK unvocalized.
   
2. 
   A faction of the “ancient” Greeks who had supported the Ottoman invasion emerged in mediaeval Athens. “There was a faction among the Athenians which had hated the Franks enough to call the Ottomans liberators, rejoicing at the invasion” ([195], page 350).
   

106b. “Ancient” Greece. The Thracians and the Macedonians.

1. 
   Philip II is closely linked to the Thracians (also TRK): “bribery allowed him to achieve a peace with the Thracians” ([258], page 463).
   
2. 
   We see a pro-Macedonian (Mohammedan?) faction emerge in the “ancient” Athens as well. They opt for a union with Macedon and support the aspirations of Philip II ([766], pages 272-277). One finds it hard not to notice the similarities between the descriptions given by the “ancient” and mediaeval sources, which is perfectly understandable – they are most likely to refer to the same reality, albeit from different stances.