1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

20. The fall of Byzantium as the end of “classical” Greece in the alleged IV century b.c.

115a. A second attack at Constantinople and its capture in the XV century a.d. All of the preceding misfortunes notwithstanding, Mohammed II makes another fierce offensive. Finally, Constantinople falls in May 1453 ([240], pages 54-56). The troops of the Byzantines and their allies suffer defeat. Greece is swept over by the invading forces of the Ottomans. In 1453 a.d. Greece and Byzantium leave the political arena as independent forces ([195], page 349). In fig 3.11 we see a memorial plaque on the gates of Istanbul where the troops of Mohammed first broke into the city ([140]).

Fig. 3.11 On 29 May, 1453, the troops of Mohammed II stormed into Constantinople. This event was commemorated by a memorial plaque. Taken from [140], page 5.

115b. “Ancient” Greece. The defeat of the Greeks in the Battle of Chaeronea. Philip II stops the siege of Byzantium for a short while, but attacks the allied troops already in the next year (338 b.c.), putting them to complete rout in the famous Battle of Chaeronea. As a result, Macedon joins most of Greece to its domain. Greece (including Byzantium) falls under the Macedonian yoke ([258], pages 474-475).

Commentary. Let us study this event in more detail, since it is of paramount importance to mediaeval history. The capture of Constantinople took a lot of effort from the part of the Ottomans (Atamans?). They had to deal with a strong fortress and well-organized defence. The Ottomans owe their success to the powerful siege artillery they had used for the most part. Some of the cannonballs that were hailing on the walls of Constantinople weighed 600 kilograms – more than half a tonne, that is ([240], page 43). The description of the famous storm contains several exaggerations of a rather fantastical nature: “many historians write in tourist guides that the sultan [Mohammed II – A. F.” had to go over mountains of corpses to ride into the temple of Hagia Sophia on the day Constantinople was taken” ([240], page 56). In other words, Mohammed rode into the famous temple in Constantinople that was described as the temple of Solomon in the Bible, qv in Chron6, Chapter 12.

“He is supposed to have rested his bloodied hand on one of the columns that is exhibited to the public even nowadays [Jalal Assad, the Turkish historian, wrote these words in 1919 – A. F.]; but even if we are to assume that all the people that the temple could house were dead, their corpses couldn’t have covered the floor with a thicker layer than 50 cm; the sultan was riding a horse, whose height was a metre and a half [Jalal Assad is quite earnest in his calculations – A. F.], and couldn’t have possibly reached the height of ten metres [sic! - A. F.], where the imaginary bloody blot is located” ([240], page 56).

Nowadays this “handprint of Mohammed II” is shown to the tourists who visit the temple of Hagia Sophia. The gigantic marble column is in the right part of the temple, far enough from the main entrance.

Fig. 3.12 The column inside the temple of St. Sophia whereupon the “handprint of Mohammed II” became impressed. Photograph taken by T. N. Fomenko in 1995.

Fig. 3.13 A close-in of “Mohammed’s handprint”.

116a. All attempts to resist the Ottomans in the XV century a.d. proved futile. The Byzantines and the Greeks had tried to organize a resistance to fight back the Ottomans; however, none of their attempts amounted to anything. Athens aren’t captured by the Ottomans, but “severed from the Latin and German Europe, it [Greece – A. F.] was overcome by the Turkish barbarism… European states – divided, enfeebled and consumed by dynastic civil discord, had acted as idle witnesses of the successes, and later the absolute triumph, of the Ottoman victors; attempts to help the Greek were few and far between” ([195], page 349).

116b. “Ancient” Greece. Greece makes its last futile attempts to fight the Macedonians back. The “ancient” Greeks had also tried to stand their ground and resist the Macedonians. An Athenian assembly even suggested to declare a “Holy War”. However, the Greek poleis proved so dissociated that no organised resistance could be arranged apart from forging the coalition between Athens and Thebes in order to prevent Philip from taking his expansion further ([258], pages 474-475).

117a. The conquest of Greece by the Ottomans in the XV century a.d. The days of independent Greece are numbered. Sultan Mohammed II had “ordered the son of Turakhan [Turkish, or Tartar Khan? - A. F.] to make the duchy of Athens a Turkish province… Omer Pasha invaded Attica, devastating the land and enslaving its inhabitants… The last Franks and the few Athenians that remained loyal to them held out against the ‘new Persians’ in the Acropolis for two years… they had no hope of receiving help” ([195], pages 350-351).

Omar was enraged by the unremitting resistance of the stronghold and gave orders to bombard the Acropolis and its environs. “The lower part of the city surrendered without a struggle, and subjected itself to all the horrors of a barbaric invasion… the obstinate resistance of the Acropolis infuriated the janissaries” ([195], pages 350-351). As we have already pointed out in Chron1, Chapter 7, it is presumed that the Ottoman invasion destroyed many monuments of the XI-XIV century epoch. The silent ruins were later declared “extremely ancient” by the mediaeval chronologists. In fig. 3.14 one sees an engraving depicting the XV century cannons ([304], Volume 2, page 554).

Fig. 3.14 An ancient miniature from Froissart’s chronicle of Bresslau depicting the siege of Neyss by Charles the Brave (XV century). We see XV century cannons, which are most noteworthy – one of them has three barrels and is mounted upon a gun-carriage ([304], Volume 2, page 554).

Let us now return to the Ottoman invasion. “Having added the conquered regions of Morea and Thessalia to his domain… Mohammed returned to the north with loot and captives… at the end of August 1458, the conqueror of Constantinople, who had destroyed Greece triumphantly, entered Athens, still covered in blood of the massacred Peloponnesians [Gregorovius doesn’t miss the opportunity to appeal to the reader’s emotions – A. F.]. He brought four hundred years of slavery to the wretched city” ([195], page 353). This is how Scaligerites present the history of the Ottoman Empire in the XV-XVII century.

117b. “Ancient” Greece. The conquest of Greece by the Macedonians. The days of independent “ancient” Greece are numbered as well. In the alleged year 338 b.c. Philip II captures the passage to Amphissa, destroys the troops of Chares and then proceeds to capture Amphissa herself. The war ended with the famous Battle of Chaeronea in the alleged year 338 b.c. The Macedonians met the Theban troops here. The battle was an extremely fierce one, and it ended in a complete rout for the Athenians and the Thebans. Athens, as well as the entire Greece, fell into in the hands of Philip II. The Macedonian conquest of Greece became a fait accompli. The Corinthian Synedrion of the alleged year 337 b.c. “was last in the history of Classical Greece” ([766], page 283). “The ancient powers of the Hellenistic world, such as Athens and Sparta… have to contend themselves with the role of backwater cantons. Henceforth the destiny of the Hellenistic world is in the hands of the Macedonians… this is where the history of the Hellenistic poleis ends to be succeeded by the history of the Macedonian Kingdom” ([766], page 283). Now we understand that this really refers to the history of the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire.

Commentary. Let us provide some additional details to the gruesome mediaeval picture of Greece trampled down into oblivion by the Ottoman invasion (as presented by the Scaligerites).

“The last desperate uprising of Peloponnesus covered the names of the freedom-loving Skipetars with glory, but ended in a complete rout. Having sent his troops led by the pashas Hamzah and Saganos to Morea, he came over the Corinthian isthmus himself the very next year in order to set all of the unfortunate country ablaze. Castles and cities were taken by storm, with thousands of their inhabitants massacred… the cities of Peloponnesus… were falling into the hands of the inhumane victors one by one… Thus, the entire Peloponnesus, excepting the Venetian colonies of Modona and Corona, fell under the onslaught of the Turkish conquerors” ([195], page 356).

After the Ottoman invasion in the XV century, the Scaligerian history of Athens becomes shrouded in utter obscurity yet again. Gregorovius tells us that “in general, a scholar studying the period of Turkish rule in Greek and Athenian history is facing a task as hard as it is unsatisfying, since he faces a desert, vainly seeking out signs of life to rest his eyes upon” ([195], page 362). We provide a more in-depth study of this issue in Chron1, Chapter 7.

118a. The conquest of Greece in 1459 a.d. The final conquest of Greece by the Ottomans takes place in 1459 a.d. ([195]).

118b. “Ancient” Greece. The conquest of Greece in the alleged year 338 b.c. The conquest of the “ancient” Greece by the Macedonians is dated to the alleged year 338 b.c. ([258]). A shift of 1810 years transforms the “ancient” year 338 b.c. into 1472 a.d., which is very close to 1459 a.d. The concurrence shall be ideal if we use a slightly smaller shift value for the “ancient” dating – one of 1800 years. We come up with 1462 a.d. - the date all but coincides with 1459 a.d. Therefore, we have apparently discovered the mediaeval original of the famous “ancient” battle of Chaeronea. Let us emphasize that certain documents were glorifying the Ottoman sultan as the new Achilles and Alexander, no less ([195], page 357). This is to be expected, since our movement forward along the “ancient” time axis brings us to Alexander the Great, the son of Philip II.

119a. Bajazet succeeds Mohammed II at the end of the XV century a.d. The historical period of roughly 1470-1485 a.d. Its first part up until 1480 is taken up by the reign of Mohammed II, who is then succeeded by Bajazet ([76]).

119b. The “antiquity”. Alexander of Macedon. He is supposed to have reigned in the alleged years 336-323 b.c. ([766], page 353).

Commentary. Unfortunately, we possess very little information about the epoch of 1470-1485 a.d. in Greece and the Ottoman Empire. The matter is that the oeuvre of F. Gregorovius demonstrates a gigantic lacuna here; he hardly knows anything about the events in Greece after its conquest by Mohammed II. Apparently, what we encounter is rather significant – namely, the paucity of mediaeval Greek documents from the epoch of 1470-1485 a.d. that have survived until our day. Gregorovius tells us the history of Athens and Greece become “shrouded by obscurity” after the Ottoman conquest. Therefore, our hypothetical comparison with the epoch of Alexander the Great shall be a brief one, due to the scarcity of mediaeval data.

120a. The Ottoman Empire and the crescent in the XV century a.d.

1. 
   The famous Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire spread its territories across Asia and a part of Europe. It was founded by Sultan Mohammed II. The empire is supposed to have been Oriental by nature.
   
2. 
   The crescent used to be a symbol of Constantinople, and later also the entire Ottoman Empire. See more on this topic in Chron6.
   

120b. The “antiquity”. The empire of Alexander the Great, aka Iscander the Bicorn.

1. 
   The famous empire of Alexander the Great. The famous empire of Alexander of Macedon (roughly translated as the Macedonian Victor). The empire possesses a distinctly Oriental character. It is presumed that Alexander took to Oriental customs and organized his entire court in the Oriental manner, especially so towards the end of his life.
   
2. 
   It is common knowledge that the Oriental name for Alexander had been Iscander the Bicorn. It is possible that the nickname “Bicorn” is a direct reference to the Mahometan crescent ([240]). In fig. 3.15 one sees an ancient silver coin with a side-face representation of Alexander the Great ([578], Book 1, page 61). The horns on his head clearly form the Ottoman crescent. It would also be apropos to point out that the famous bust of Alexander the Great of the alleged IV century b.c. is also located in the Ottoman (Ataman?) Museum of Istanbul, or Constantinople ([660], Volume 2, page 400). See fig. 3.16. Everything becomes perfectly clear – this is where it should be if Alexander the Great reflects the last period in the biography of the Ottoman Mohammed II the Conqueror and his closest successors – the sultans of the XV-XVI century a.d., first of all Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent (1520-1566). See Chron6 for more details.
   

Fig. 3.15 Alexander the Great with a pair of horns on his head. An ancient silver coin. This is most likely to be the Ottoman crescent on a sultan’s head, transformed in this manner by the perception of later artists. Taken from [578], Book 1, page 61, ill. 49.

Fig. 3.16 Alexander of Macedon. Istanbul, the Ottoman museum. Presumably a copy of a sculpture by Lysippus dating to the alleged IV century B.C. Taken from [660], Volume 2, pages 400-401.

121a. Map of the Ottoman Empire in the XV century a.d. In fig. 3.17 one sees a map of the Ottoman Empire as it had been in the XV century a.d.

Fig. 3.17 A comparison of maps that depict the mediaeval Ottoman Empire and the “ancient” empire of Alexander the Great.

121b. The “antiquity”. The map of Alexander’s empire. Let us now compare it to the map of the “ancient” empire of Alexander the Great, qv in fig. 3.17. It is most noteworthy that the occidental parts of both maps are virtually identical if one is to regard the part that lies to the west from the 40th meridian. In other words, the maps are very much like each other apart from Iran and its eastern neighbouring territories. This similarity is particularly manifest in the European and Mediterranean parts of both empires; these regions must have been covered by the chronicles the most extensively.

Commentary. Let us point out that the area where Alexander’s empire stretches beyond its Ottoman double in the east had existed in the “ancient history” for a very limited amount of time. At the end of the alleged III century b.c., this eastern part of Alexander’s empire became split up ([766], page 294). Bearing this in mind, one sees that the map of Alexander’s empire begins to resemble that of the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire even more.

Commentary. The “ancient” Alexander of Macedon with the mediaeval imperial bicephalous eagle in the background, wearing a crown and holding an orb and a sceptre. Now we can find an altogether different angle on the legend of “Alexander the Great rapt into heavens”. We are referring to the numerous “ancient” and mediaeval depictions of Alexander with a two-headed bird in the background, or Alexander lifted into heaven by a bicephalous creature, or just a pair of either birds or winged animals depicted by his side. This subject even enjoys the attention of a special paragraph entitled “The Flight of Alexander the Great” in The Secular Art of Byzantium ([232], pages 154-159).

We learn of the following: “the fantastical episode with Alexander ascending into the heavens was particularly popular in mediaeval art… Alexander flies upwards riding a gigantic bird… Greek copies of Alexander’s biography… would contain illustrations depicting two large white birds wearing a harness… young Alexander is sitting on the back of a huge bird with spread wings (an eagle?)… there were Byzantine pictures of Alexander which had remained unknown in the West, portraying him carried by two enormous birds and not griffins. The X century piece of embroidery from the Würzburg Museum depicts Alexander… sitting between two big eagle-like birds… who appear to be standing still rather than flying” ([232], pages 154-155). The embroidery can be seen in fig. 3.18.

Fig. 3.18 Ancient Byzantine embroidery of the alleged X century from the Würzburg museum. We see Alexander of Macedon with two eagle-like birds in the background that look very much like the imperial bicephalous eagle. Taken from [232], page 155, ill. 224.

All of the above brings us to the obvious consideration that what we see are in fact representations of the mediaeval imperial bicephalous eagle, which had been on the coat of arms of the mediaeval “Mongolian” empire in the XIV-XVII century. Moreover, in fig. 3.18 we see Alexander hold two items that resemble an orb and a sceptre a great deal. Historians couldn’t have left this fact unnoticed. V. Darkevich, the author of the book, comments on yet another portrait of Alexander (the one we see in fig. 3.19) in the following manner: “he is holding a stele with bait [?! – A. F.] in his right hand, and an object that resembles an orb in his left” ([232], page 156).

Fig. 3.19 The ascension of Alexander the Great. Artwork on a bone casket dating to the alleged IX-X century A.D. from the Darmstadt museum. We see Alexander wearing a crown and holding an orb and a sceptre. Taken from [232], page 156, ill. 227.

Indeed, Alexander the Great is holding a sceptre in his right hand and an orb in his left hand; he is also wearing a royal crown on his head. It isn’t hard to understand why V. P. Darkevich elusively titles the sceptre in Alexander’s hand “a stele with bait” - otherwise one would very naturally come to the thought that Alexander the Great had really been a mediaeval emperor, or sultan, with a bicephalous eagle on his imperial coat of arms, which is perfectly heretical in the Scaligerian paradigm.

The same V. P. Darkevich adduces two more Iranian representations which he calls “Hero Flying a Bird” (fig. 3.20), and “The Hero Ascending on a Fantasy Bird” (fig. 3.21). In the first one we see a single-headed imperial eagle with the portrait of an emperor on its breast, and almost the same in the second – an emperor’s face where the coat of arms should be. Both are perfectly unequivocal; the commentator makes the very pertinent remark about the heraldic position of the bird ([232], page 155). Mediaeval Iran must also have been part of the Great = “Mongolian” Empire, whose official symbol was the bicephalous eagle.

Fig. 3.20 A piece of Iranian artwork dating to the alleged X century A.D. We see an emperor against a background with a single-headed imperial eagle. London, Victoria and Albert Museum. Taken from [232], page 156, ill. 225.

Fig. 3.21 A piece of Iranian artwork of the alleged XI-XII century A.D. depicting a bicephalous imperial eagle with the portrait of an emperor on its breast, where one would expect to see a coat of arms. Taken from [232], page 156, ill. 226.

In fig. 3.22 we see “The Ascension of Alexander the Great” depicted on a copper cup dating to the alleged XII century. The text on the cup is Arabic. V. P. Darkevich points out that “the style of the cup… as well as the character of the artwork are alien to the Muslim world. Apparently, it was made in imitation of a Byzantine model. Alexander wears the attire of a Greek Basileus. His crown resembles the stemma of Constantine Monomachus to the detail” ([232], page 157). A panoptic illustration can be seen in fig. 3.23.

Fig. 3.22 Artwork portraying Alexander the Great dating to the first half of the alleged XII century A.D. Mesopotamia. Kept in the Innsbruck Museum. Taken from [232], page 157, ill. 228.

Fig. 3.23 A general view of the “Mesopotamian chalice” dated to the alleged XII century A. D. portraying Alexander of Macedon as a Greek emperor, wearing a crown and holding an orb and a sceptre, with either a bicephalous winged animal or two birds in the background. Taken from [232], page 158, ill. 232. Innsbruck Museum.

We provide several similar works of art influenced by the topic of “The Ascension of Alexander the Great” that contain representations of a sceptre, an orb and the imperial bicephalous eagle in:

• 
  fig. 3.24 – a relief from the San Marco Cathedral in Venice;
  
• 
  fig. 3.25 – a Russian golden coronal of the alleged XI-XII century a.d., kept in Kiev;
  
• 
  fig. 3.26 – a relief from the Peribleptos monastery in Mystras, dating to the alleged XI century a.d.;
  
• 
  fig. 3.27 – a relief from the Dochiariu monastery, Athos, dating to the alleged XI century a.d.;
  
• 
  fig. 3.28 – floor inlay of the alleged XII century a.d. from the Otranto Cathedral ([232]).
  

Fig. 3.24 The ascension of Alexander the Great. A marble relief from the north façade of the San Marco Cathedral in Venice. Dated to the alleged XI-XII century A.D. Taken from [232], page 157, ill. 230.

Fig. 3.25 The ascension of Alexander the Great. A fragment of a golden coronet. Russian artwork dating to the alleged XI-XII century A. D. Kiev, the State Ukrainian Museum of History. Taken from [232], page 157, ill. 231.

Fig. 3.26 The ascension of Alexander the Great. Relief in stone from the Peribleptos monastery in Mystras. Approximately dated to the alleged year 1000 B.C. Taken from [232], page 159, ill. 233.

Fig. 3.27 The ascension of Alexander the Great. A relief in stone from the Dochiariou monastery, Mount Athos, dating to the alleged XI century A.D. Copy in drawing. Taken from [232], page 159, ill. 234.

Fig. 3.28 The ascension of Alexander the Great. An inlay on the floor of the Otranto Cathedral dating to the alleged year 1165 A.D. Copy in drawing. Taken from [232], page 159, ill. 235.

This manner of portraying Alexander the Great was very popular indeed in Russia, especially “the XII-XIII century sculptural works of Vladimir and Suzdal” ([232], page 158). For instance, “on the relief of the southern façade of the Dmitrievskiy Cathedral in Vladimir… Alexander… is depicted holding… leonine figurines” ([232], page 158). See also fig. 3.29.

Fig. 3.29 The ascension of Alexander the Great. Vladimir, Dmitrievskiy Cathedral. A relief from the artwork over the entrance of the southern façade. Taken from [116], ill. 31.

We proceed to find out that the mediaeval Occidental European “knights regarded the Macedonian invader as a role model, inspired by his bravery, magnanimity, and generosity” ([232], page 154).

In fig. 3.30 one sees an “exceptionally ancient” specimen of Minoan jewellery dated to the alleged XVII century b.c. This golden plaque was found on the Aegina isle ([863], page 12). It is supposed to represent a “Lord of the Beasts” of some sort – however, we believe it to be yet another allusion to the ascension of Alexander the Great, a mediaeval Emperor/ Sultan/Khan, upon the imperial bicephalous eagle, dating to the XV-XVI century a.d.

Fig. 3.30 A figure of “the Lord of the Beasts” embossed on a golden plate. Found on the Aegina island and considered an outstanding masterpiece of Minoan jewellery nowadays, dating to the alleged XVII century A.D. We are most likely to be seeing the same “ascension of Alexander the Great” against the background of a bicephalous imperial eagle. Taken from [863], p. 12.

Scaligerian history is nevertheless of the opinion that “the Minoan culture had reached its dazzling zenith in the period of 2000-1450 b.c.” ([863], p. 12). Its tragic demise came around 1450 b.c., when “the island was invaded by the tribes of Mycenae from mainland Greece; they looted all of the Cretan cities and palaces” ([863], p. 12). This must have really happened in the XV-XVI century a.d. Thus, the dating of 1450 has to assume a positive value instead of a negative one.

Commentary. Duplicates in Ottoman history. The Ottoman (Ataman?) history also contains phantom duplicates, and is thus a great deal shorter than what is assumed nowadays. We shall soon address this problem in detail separately, merely pointing out that there were only three Mohammeds in the history of the Saracenic caliphs starting with the alleged VII century a.d. and up until the XVI century a.d., namely:

• 
  Mohammed the Great, alleged year 622 a.d. and on, then
  
• 
  Mohammed I, 1389(?)-1421 a.d., and finally the already familiar
  
• 
  Mohammed II the Conqueror (1429-1481), who had reigned between the alleged years 1451 and 1481 a.d.
  

Mohammed I is supposed to have started the revival of the empire in the XV century, however, the “true founder of the Ottoman Empire” is none other but Mohammed II, the conqueror of the Byzantine Empire. Thus, we see two great Mohammeds separated by an interval of roughly 830 years – Mohammed the Great and Mohammed II. Mohammed the Great of the alleged VII century is therefore a phantom reflection of the XV century Mohammed the Conqueror.

122a. The propagation of Hellenism in the XV century a.d. The fall of Byzantium and Greece, as well as the foundation of the Cyclopean Ottoman Empire, brought the famous “mediaeval Hellenistic movement” to life. It had spread across the entire Europe by mid-XV century. “Ever since the fall of Hellas, Greek history has been split in two: one of the halves has to do with their enslaved fatherland, and the other tells us of their exile. Just like the Jews after the fall of Jerusalem [we shall observe this comparison to prove even more correct than the author could ever imagine – A. F.], they began to emigrate en masse and settle in foreign countries. The West welcomed them warmly: their soldiers and officers served in the European troops… their clerical and intellectual aristocracy found shelter in many capitals and universities of Italy, having brought Greek literature to these parts once again” ([195], page 360).

122b. The “antiquity”. The spread of Hellenism in the alleged III century b.c. The creation of Alexander’s empire had been the driving force behind such a unique phenomenon of the “ancient” Greek history as “Hellenization” ([766], page 297). “The period between the battle of Issas and Greek states swearing fealty to Rome [in the alleged IV-II century b.c.]… is habitually referred to as “the Hellenistic Epoch”, or “the epoch of Hellenism”… which was allegedly marked by the propagation of Greek culture to all the lands conquered by Macedonia… the wide dissemination of Greek culture over almost the entire inhabited surface of the Earth became the foundation whereupon the world domination of Alexander the Great had stood poised, which made it possible for the Greek genius to make his desire to “rule the entire world” a reality. Hellenism becomes a global cultural plant” ([766], page 297).

Commentary. This propagation process of the mediaeval Hellenism is of sufficient interest for us to study it in greater detail. “Likewise their ancient Roman ancestors, these wandering Greeks instigated a new epoch of Philhellenism in educated Western society [F. Gregorovius is perfectly right to point out the parallel we get after a shift of 1800 years – A. F.], which proved as one of the most important moral stimuli leading to the liberation of Greece. Due to the efforts of Bessarion, Chalkokondyles, Lascaris, Argiropulos, Gasaz and others, great seminaries of avant-garde European culture were founded in Italy… whilst Europe was undergoing the laborious process of digesting the ancient science, the yoke of Turkish barbarity was borne by the devastated Greece” ([195], page 360). We can see that F. Gregorovius uses his darkest colours for the Ottoman history systematically.

123a. Religious tolerance of the Turkish invaders in the XV century a.d. Regardless of the fact that the epoch of the Ottoman rule over Europe is presented as a time of “the most ruthless oppression of the conquered nations” by the Scaligerian history, we instantly learn that the Ottomans had been perfectly tolerant to all religions. For instance, complete liberty was declared for the Athenian officiations” ([195], page 354). When historians encounter such phenomena on the pages of old documents, they have to invent such “explanations” as: “the Turks had to show all the more mercy to the Hellenes since the latter were representing an entire ancient nation and culture, also surpassing the invaders in their sheer number” ([195], page 361).

Commentary. Is it true that the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire had been nothing but a “grim empire of slavery” and a “prison of nations”? Aren’t we running into yet another case of mediaeval history distorted deliberately by the Scaligerite historians of the XVII-XVIII century? Could this have been propaganda? At any rate, this is the idea we get nowadays as a result of having the opportunity to perceive the epoch of the XV-XVI century a.d. from the point of view of the “ancient authors”. The texts are then returned to their proper chronological location, the epoch of the XIII-XVI century a.d.

We are beginning to understand that the “ancient” empire of Alexander and the mediaeval Ottoman Empire may have merely been two reflections of the same state that existed in the XV-XVI century. In this case what we notice is a substantially different manner of how these “two empires” are represented in Scaligerian history – in Western European history textbooks, for instance, beginning with the XVII-XVIII century. The Ottoman Empire is usually portrayed in a very negative manner, as one can clearly see from such visual aids as the engraving we see in fig. 3.31, allegedly reflecting a popular Ottoman custom. The engraving is taken from the famous fundamental work of the historian Oscar Ieger entitled Global History, and it bears the legend “Turkish warrior, leading captive Austrian country-folk” ([304], Volume 3, page 72). A despiteous Ottoman is dragging hapless European captives behind him, with an infant nonchalantly spitted upon his lance. Such “visual aids” of a tendentiously appalling nature were common for Western Europe, and later on Romanovian Russia.

Fig. 3.31 A mediaeval engraving by Hans Guldenmundt dating to the times of the first siege of Vienna (presumably by the Turks) in 1520. This is clearly a piece of agitprop aiming to convey the cruelty of the Ottomans who conquered Western Europe. Taken from a history textbook by O. Ieger ([304], Volume 3, p. 72). By and large, the Scaligerian version that tells us about the “siege of Vienna by the Turks” contains a great number of riddles. Their in-depth discussion is given in Chron6.

At the same time, the “ancient” Empire of Alexander the Great is usually treated benevolently. For instance, the very same history textbook by Oscar Ieger contains a very appealing picture of a handsome “ancient” bust portraying Alexander (fig. 3.32).

Fig. 3.32 An “ancient” bust, or portrait of Alexander the Great (of Macedon) from the Capitol Museum, Rome. Taken from [304], Volume 1, pages 242-243.

Thus, having spawned a second Ottoman empire on paper and separated the resulting two duplicates chronologically, Scaligerian history started to refer to the mediaeval empire negatively, retaining a benevolent disposition towards its “ancient reflection”.

By the way, one also gets the following idea as a result. When we look at a large number of the photographs of the famous “ancient” busts and statues portraying famous “ancient” public figures, we instantly notice the suspiciously uniform style of their manufacture, although they’re supposed to date from various centuries. Exquisite quality of marble, brilliant technique and school, very high reproduction quality and almost always a good condition are hard not to notice. Could all of these “ancient” busts, statues etc have been made under the aegis of the same propaganda programme in several Western European workshops during the Reformation epoch of the XVI-XVII century, when the Scaligerian version of history was being introduced in a rather aggressive fashion? New “textbooks” needed new visual aids for better illustration, after all; famous artists and sculptors of the XVI-XVII century may have been hired and paid healthily for this. They would create a number of originals – true works of art. Then craftsmen would make a multitude of copies. Actually, the number of the most famous “ancient statues and busts” that we have at our disposal today isn’t all that large, and they could all have been created over several decades.

Furthermore, the authors of the “beauteous” ancient statues baffle us by their immaculate familiarity with human anatomy. Such in-depth knowledge could only have been gathered in an epoch when medicine, anatomy and surgical science were all well developed already. When did that happen? Mediaeval history makes it common knowledge that a serious scientific study of the human body, its muscles, and the relative location of organs didn’t begin until the XV-XVI century. Some of the greatest sculptors and artists of that age took part in the creation of anatomical atlases (Leonardo da Vinci and many others). A great number of books and manuals on anatomy were written – see fig. 3.33, for instance. This Italian book entitled The Anatomy of Human Body contains a visual aid that depicts a man who had peeled off his skin and demonstrates his muscular system. These books must have taught the “ancient” artists everything they knew, and the process of study had been a long and arduous one. Therefore, these artists give themselves away as having lived and worked in the XVI-XVII century.

A propos, anatomical atlases of the XV-XVII century lead one to the observation that practical anatomy whose naissance took place in this era became reflected in such legends as the “ancient” Greek myth of Marcius. Let us remind the reader that it was he who had challenged Apollo himself to a musical contest; the latter had defeated Marcius and “skinned the miserable wretch” as a punishment for boldness ([533], Volume 2, page 120). The skin was then hung from a tree. This “ancient” legend of skinning victims and hanging their skin from trees is very likely a child of mediaeval anatomy (which went hand in glove with such XV-XVI century illustrations as the one in fig. 3.33.

Fig. 3.33 An Italian book entitled The Anatomy of Human Body. Juan Valverde de Amusco. Anatomia del corpo humano. Rome: Ant. Salamanca, et Antonio Lafreri, 1560. R. G. Med. II 215, fols. 63 verso – 64 recto. Taken from [1374], page 185.

Let us however return to the parallelism between the “ancient” Macedonians and the mediaeval Ottomans.

123b. The “ancient” Greece. Philip II did not destroy Greek culture. As was the case in the middle ages, the “ancient” Greeks became part of Alexander’s empire in the most organic manner. Despite the fact that the country had been conquered by Philip II, the Greeks neither lost their national identity, nor their religion ([766], page 328).

Commentary. Accusing the mediaeval Ottomans of barbarity the way he was taught in a Western European school, Ferdinand Gregorovius does at the same time tell us of curious parallels between the “antiquity” and the Middle Ages. He writes that “the Turkish monarchy… was unable to build a cultivated state out of them [the conquered lands – A. F.], one that would resemble Byzantium and the monarchy of Alexander” ([195], page 367). However, we’re already capable of understanding that the “ancient enlightened and cultivated monarchy of Alexander” is the very same thing as the Ottoman (Ataman?) Empire of the XV-XVI century. Therefore, F. Gregorovius is inadvertently telling us that the mediaeval Ottoman Empire had been an enlightened state of great culture and not an “empire of evil”.

Apart from the above, we find that “it is most significant how both the beginning and the end of the majestic historiography of the Greeks are marked by national genesis in a similar manner. Just like the Persians at some point, the Turks had given the Greek historiography a boost” ([195], page 324). It is in this very manner that Gregorovius calls the mediaeval Chalkokondyles an imitator of the “ancient” Herodotus, and Thrandsas – of Xenophon. “They were fated to become historians of their homeland’s enslavement by the new Persians [sic! – A. F.]” ([195], page 324).

124a. The parallelism ends in the XV century a.d. This is where the most remarkable Gregorovian œuvre entitled Mediaeval History of Athens comes to an end ([195]). We have often used it for our analysis of mediaeval Greek history.

124b. “Ancient” Greece. The end of the parallelism. This is where the monograph Ancient Greece ([258]) and the History of the Ancient Greece textbook ([766]) happen to end as well – we have used them for our study of the “ancient” events, among other things.

125a. An odd paucity of data pertaining to mediaeval Greece. Indeed, one finds it most surprising that the Crusader Greece of the XI-XV century hardly left us any mediaeval literature at all (see [195]). Could the mediaeval Ottomans and crusaders have been so ignorant and uncultivated that they left no literature and no art behind them? As we have already mentioned in Chron1, Chapter 7, the great significance of the crusades wasn’t merely ecclesiastical, but secular as well. The “Latin Crusade”, for instant, was initiated by powerful representatives of secular European circles as well as Innocent III.

This odd circumstance – “the Dark Age of Greece, resplendent in glory” (see Chron1, Chapter 7) could not have been left uncommented upon by such experts as F. Gregorovius, who responded with the following explanatory comment:

“The reasons for the spiritual agenesis that had been afflicting the city of Plato during all of the mediaeval period, hardly require an explanation… the complete absence of indigenous scribes in Athens and all of Hellas in general is most saddening, but better understandable than nearly everything else. Since the chronographers of Byzantium paid no attention to the historical life of the Hellenes, their offspring had no one but the latter to turn to for information.

It was however claimed that each Greek city possessed a chronicle in the Middle Ages, one that historical events were written to in the hagiographic fashion, and also that these chronicles were only kept in Cyprus, and got destroyed by the Turks eventually. This is, of course, possible, but, unfortunately, doesn’t give us any knowledge about the existence of such chronicles in Athens and other cities of Hellas. It was just Morea whose glory had been its national chronicle [which actually enabled us the discovery of many double identifications of the above listed – A. F.]… Not a single rendition of Athenian History under the Frankish dukes [sic! – A. F.] has reached our day and age; however, we do possess two chronicles of the Peloponnesian conquest, one in Greek and another in French” ([195], pages 325-326).

125b. Rich literary tradition of the “ancient” Greece. One pays instant attention to the fact that a sufficiently great number of “ancient” Greek literary works have reached our time – historical tractates, plays, poetry etc. Everything begins to fall into place now – they are most likely to be “the lost mediaeval Greek texts” misdated by the chronologists of the XVI-XVII century. Thus, we apparently have original mediaeval documents telling us about Greece in the XI-XV century a.d. at our disposal – the texts of Herodotus, Xenophon, Thucydides, Aristotle, Plato, Aristophanes and so on; however, their works must have undergone some heavy editing in the XVI-XVII century a.d. while they remained in the hands of the Scaligerite historians.