1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

19. The mediaeval siege of Constantinople (Byzantium) as the “ancient” siege of Byzantium

The fall of Byzantium in 1453, after the siege of Constantinople, which had fallen prey to the Ottomans, is one of the key events of the Middle Ages. We have already seen this event reflected in the “ancient” sources as “the secession of Byzantium”. It would be logical to assume that mediaeval documents subsequently declared “ancient” shall also reflect the siege of Constantinople. One has to bear in mind that Scaligerian history claims Byzantium to have been the initial name of Constantinople ([240]). Our prognosis is verified; some of the so-called “ancient” sources do indeed tell us about the siege of Byzantium by Philip II. Let us point out certain curious details.

107a. The siege of Constantinople by Mohammed II in the XV century a.d. Mohammed II launches a large-scale military invasion in 1453 a.d. He aims to capture Constantinople, formerly known as the city of Byzantium ([240], page 37). The Ottomans (Atamans?) approach Constantinople as a large front and occupy the entire neighbouring region. The Byzantines get ready for a hard siege, realizing that Mohammed II prepared well for this invasion. The siege of the city begins in 1453 a.d.

107b. “Ancient” Greece. The city of Byzantium besieged by Philip II. Philip II begins military expansion, and besieges Perinth in the alleged year 340 b.c. The Perinthians have “called upon Byzantium and Athens for help. The Byzantines sent them siege machines” ([258], page 473). Mark the typically mediaeval terminology in the texts that were declared “ancient” afterwards: one sees constant references to Byzantium and the Byzantines. The “ancient” Philip II begins the siege of Byzantium in the alleged year 340 b.c., faithfully repeating all the actions of the mediaeval Mohammed II.

108a. Constantinople in the XV century a.d. as a powerful fortress and an imperial capital. The city possessed formidable fortifications to protect it against attacks from the sea as well as dry land, and was known as a strong fortress which had survived many a siege. The siege of Constantinople by Mohammed II is one of the most complex military operations in the history of the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire.

108b. “Ancient” Greece. Byzantium as a large city. The sources that became declared “ancient” in a later age emphasize the crucial role played by the city of Byzantium in the epoch of Philip II. We learn that Philip II “besieged a great city upon the straits – Byzantium” ([258], page 473). The “ancient” Byzantium had heavy fortifications, and its siege proved a very difficult endeavour.

109a. A fleet of allies comes to rescue Constantinople in the XV century a.d. “The attack of the Ottomans was stopped at the news of an army of the Hungarians and the Italians that was coming to aid Constantinople” ([240], page 51). Genoans and their allies had gathered a large fleet, and it became known that “large Venetian and Genoan vessels were coming to rescue the city” ([240], page 45).

109b. “Ancient” Greece. The fleet of the Greeks comes to rescue Byzantium. It is amazing that the sources that were declared “ancient” in the XVI-XVII century give us an almost word-for-word rendition of what we learn from other mediaeval documents. “The siege of Byzantium created an outrage in Athens. The actions of Philip were condemned as breach of peace, and two squadrons were sent to help the Byzantines… Several Greek poleis – Khios, Kos and Rhodes also sent warships. The fleet that gathered in Byzantium was a formidable force ([258], page 473).

110a. The defeat of the Turkish fleet in the XV century a.d. A violent sea battle takes place at the walls of Constantinople, or Byzantium; the fleet of Mohammed II is crushed completely as a result. The Byzantines and their allies managed to “burn a large part of the Turkish fleet with Greek fire” ([240], page 46). “Greek fire” is most probably a reference to the mediaeval artillery.

110b. “Ancient” Greece. The defeat of the Macedonian fleet. The walls of the “ancient” Byzantium also see a large sea battle that ends with the defeat of Philip’s fleet. “The allies have destroyed the Macedonian fleet in a battle, having thus achieved maritime supremacy” ([258], page 473).

111a. The protracted siege of Constantinople in the XV century. The siege of Constantinople, or Byzantium, was becoming procrastinated. The attempts of Mohammed II to attack the city from dry land also prove futile. Constantinople was receiving assistance from the sea – in particular, the ships had delivered reinforcements of 5000 men” ([240], page 46).

111b. “Ancient” Greece. The protracted siege of Byzantium. Philip’s siege of Byzantium was also marred by procrastination. “Philip’s siege of the city from dry land wasn’t very effective, since Byzantium received everything she needed from the sea” ([258], page 473).

Commentary. It is amazing how the mediaeval version turns out to be the spitting image of the “ancient”. Why hasn’t this been noticed before? We consider the following to be the reason: firstly, individual parallels were pointed out by historians every now and then. We have already given rather vivid examples from F. Gregorovius. Also, the direct “parallels between Philip II as a menace to the ancient Greece and the modern Turkish menace” were marked by Cardinal Bessarion in the alleged XV century ([1374], page 65). One should presume that the real XV century texts, which weren’t yet “carefully edited” by the XVII-XVIII century historians, were identifying the Macedonians as the Ottomans, without any “parallels” whatsoever. According to the historians of today, “it was popular practice to liken the Turks to the ancient Persians or the Macedonian ‘barbarians’ who had been a menace to the free cities of Greece ([1374], page 65).

It would be hard to go beyond such individual observations of “parallels” remaining within the confines of the Scaligerian chronology. It would require the discovery of the chronological shifts in the “Scaliger-Petavius textbook” first, and also the understanding of their system (or, in other words, who should be compared to whom), which is crucial. A random comparison of biographies would most probably yield no results at all, since Scaligerian history contains too many characters and details. Parallels between characters and events can only be discovered when the “statistically similar epochs” are already selected from the vast number of events under comparison with the aid of statistical methods.

112a. Constantinople as a formidable fortress in the XV century. The treason of the commander-in-chief.

1. 
   The famous triple belt of strong walls around Constantinople was considered a wonder of fortification technology in the Middle Ages ([240]).
   
2. 
   Byzantine troops were led by a certain Justiniani – none other but Justinian! See [240]. When the going got rough for Constantinople, he suddenly decided to betray the Byzantines and flee the city on a galley. “Such recreance from the part of the Greek leader must have fallen heavy on the morale of the troops” ([240], page 53).
   

112b. “Ancient” Greece. The strong fortifications of the city of Byzantium. Commander-in-chief accused of treason.

1. 
   We learn that the “ancient” Byzantium was also heavily fortified. “Sturdy walls protected the besieged from the fierce attacks of the Macedonians” ([258], page 473).
   
2. 
   Philip II tried to resort to the following ploy. He suddenly “slandered the Byzantine commander before his fellow citizens” ([258], page 473). Thus, we see the Byzantine military leader accused of treason as well. We couldn’t find any details pertaining to this – however, the parallel with the mediaeval events is quite obvious.
   

113a. A standstill in the XV century siege. The siege of Constantinople grinds to a halt. “The Byzantine emperor suggested to negotiate for a yearly tribute if the siege be terminated” ([240], pages 46-47).

113b. “Ancient” Greece. A standstill. We see a pause in the siege of the “ancient” Byzantium as well. Philip II fails to take the city by storm ([258], page 473).

114a. The proposal to cease the siege of Constantinople. After their defeat at sea, the Ottomans (Atamans?) begin to consider stopping the siege. “A council was gathered… Kahlil Pasha, the Grand Vizier, suggested that the Sultan should negotiate a truce” ([240], page 47). All of the above takes place in 1453 a.d.

114b. “Ancient” Greece. End of the siege. “Philip II had held Perinth and Byzantium, but in 339 he was forced to stop the siege of both cities” ([258], page 473). Thus, the siege of Byzantium lasted for about a year. The events in question took place in the alleged years 339-340 b.c.

Commentary. The “ancient” year 340 b.c. is separated from the mediaeval year 1453 a.d. by an interval of 1793, which almost equals the 1800-year value of the chronological shift. Let us remind the reader that the value of the shift varies from document to document, and may equal either 1778, 1800 or 1810 years. We are thus witnessing how the shift that we have discovered is manifest on a time interval of many centuries, identifying “ancient” events as their mediaeval originals.