1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

21. Amazingly similar volume graphs of “ancient” and mediaeval Greek “biographies”

We have thus discovered the superimposition of the “ancient” Greek history over its mediaeval counterpart. It is also confirmed by the maxima correlation principle as formulated in Chapter 5 of Chron1. Unfortunately, the History by Herodotus doesn’t contain any chronological division of events into separate years, and his de facto datings of events remain unknown. Therefore, the statistical comparison of the Herodotean work ([163]) to the Gregorovian ([195]) had to be rougher. The parallelism between the events that we have discovered presents us with several distinct protagonists that are described in both ancient and mediaeval sources.

Let us linger on the following:

• 
  King Croesus as Manfred;
  
• 
  King Cyrus I as Charles of Anjou;
  
• 
  King Cambyses as Charles II of Naples;
  
• 
  King Darius I as Frederick II;
  
• 
  King Xerxes as Walther II Herzog.
  

Let us concentrate on the fragments of [163] and [195] (the respective works of both Herodotus and Gregorovius) that refer to these characters. It can only be done approximately, of course. Therefore, the following principle was used: the moment when the character in question first appeared in text was marked explicitly as such (see correspondent references below) – or set as equivalent to that of his predecessor becoming terminally inactive due to death or for another reason.

1) Let us begin with the History of Herodotus ([163]). The first 17 pages of this book refer to the historical background for the events described in the main part of the History. Therefore, we shall get directly to the first protagonist of Herodotus – King Croesus. We learn of his existence when we hear of his predecessor’s demise (the latter was named King Alyattes): “after the war with the Miletans had ended, Alyattes the Lydian died” ([163]), 1:25. In the following section (26) we see that “after the death of Alyattes, the kingdom was inherited by his son Croesus” ([163], 1:26, page 18). It would be natural to regard this moment as the beginning of Croesus’ biography.

2) The end of Croesus’ reign is virtually coincident with the enthronement of Cyrus: “such is the story of the reign of Cyrus and the first conquest of Ionia” ([163], 1:92, page 41). Herodotus proceeds to sum up the results of this reign. On the next page he tells us: “We shall be concerned with Cyrus henceforth” ([163], 1:95, page 42). The connexion between Croesus and Cyrus must definitely be traced here. Thus, Croesus is described on pages 18-42, and the volume of Herodotus’ History that he occupies equals 24 pages.

3) The end of Cyrus’ reign coincides with the end of Book 1 (Clio): “Cyrus himself had died as well” ([163], 1:214, page 79). The reign of Cambyses begins from the next page: “after the death of Cyrus, the kingdom was inherited by his son Cambyses” ([163], 2:1, p. 80). Thus, Cyrus occupies pages 42-79, and his “volume” in the work of Herodotus equals 37 pages.

4) The demise of King Cambyses coincides with the beginning of Darius’ reign: “upon the arrival of Darius, six Persians [who held the heirdom council after Cambyses – A. F.] decided to make him their accomplice” ([163], 3:70, page 161). Cambyses is described on pages 79-161, and the volume of his fragment equals 82 pages.

5) The end of Darius’ reign coincides with the end of History ([163], page 453). Herodotus tells us that “Darius had died during the preparations for the campaign… His son Xerxes became the successor of Darius after the death of the latter” ([163], 7:4-5, page 314). Thus, the text that describes Darius comprises 153 pages – 161-314. The text describing King Xerxes covers pages 314-453 and comprises 139 pages.

6) The end of the reign of Xerxes coincides with the end of History by Herodotus ([163], page 453).

We have gone through the entire History having just skipped the brief 17-page introduction. The volume graph for these “ancient biographies” is cited in fig. 3.34.

Fig. 3.34 A comparison of “per name volume functions” for the main characters from the History of Herodotus ([163]) and the Gregorovian œuvre ([195]).

*1) Mediaeval History of Athens ([195]) by Ferdinand Gregorovius was processed similarly. Byzantine Empire was restored in 1261 a.d. This is the first time that King Manfred makes an entrance in the Gregorovian oeuvre ([195], page 188(11)). We find the end of his reign several pages further: “Charles of Anjou… defeated King Manfred in the decisive Battle of Benevente” ([195], page 188(14)). Therefore, main textual volume for King Manfred equals 3 pages.

*2) The death of Charles of Anjou is described at the end of page 188(25). The volume of text for Charles of Anjou should therefore equal 11 pages: 188(14)-188(25).

*3) The next character in our table is Charles II of Naples. He was succeeded by Frederick II ([195], page 188(37)). Here we learn about the truce that he signed with Charles, which is when Charles II disappeared from the pages of the book ([195]). The focus shifts to Frederick II. Therefore, page 188(37) marks the end of Charles’ reign and the beginning of Frederick’s. The text volume shall thus equal 12 pages for Charles II: 188(25)-188(37).

*4) Walther de Briennes appears on page 236, and further events are to deal with him. Formally, we do encounter a single phrase that informs us of Frederick’s demise several pages later – on 243. Therefore page 236 marks the end of Frederick’s reign, and the enthronement of Walther II. Frederick II shall thus receive the volume equalling 55 pages: 188(37)-188(45), and then also pages 189-236.

*5) Walther II is described by Gregorovius very briefly. We chose page 250 as correspondent to the de facto end of his rule. This results in 14 pages for Walther: 236-250.

See fig. 3.34 for the volume graph of these mediaeval “biographies”, whereas fig. 3.35 demonstrates the annual volume graphs for the epochs marked by said characters on the time axis. It is perfectly obvious that the “ancient” graph resembles its mediaeval counterpart to a great extent. We are referring to their qualitative character as well as the simultaneity of their peaks (maxima). Absolute amplitude values are of little relevance here, since the vertical scale choice is unimportant for estimating the sequence or simultaneity of the peaks. We have but 5 points here, which is obviously insufficient material for statistical conclusions – these graphs can only serve as secondary argumentation to support the veracity of the biographical superimposition described above.

Fig. 3.35. A comparison of “annual volume functions” for the five epochs defined in the works of Herodotus and F. Gregorovius by the historical figures listed above.

Summary.

Apparently, “ancient” Greece is but an alias of mediaeval Greece of the XI-XV century a.d. The mutual superimposition of the “ancient” and the mediaeval events that we have discovered is reflected in the table above. Basically, it moves “ancient” Greek history into the Middle Ages. For each major event of the “antiquity”, a mediaeval original is given. If you need to find one for the “ancient” Plato along with his years of life, for instance, you can find Plato in the table and turn to the parallel mediaeval paragraph – in this case the biography of the mediaeval Gemisto Pleton from the XV century a.d.

“Ancient” authors telling us about “Classical Greece”, such as Herodotus, Thucydides etc, are in fact mediaeval authors who had lived in the XIV-XVI century a.d. Their overwhelming majority had nothing to do with any falsification of any kind, and consisted of earnest scribes who had tried to get real mediaeval events down on paper. They had lived in the same epoch as other chroniclers that we know as mediaeval nowadays – the sole difference being that the “ancient” events were misdated and travelled backwards in time as a result. Furthermore, “ancient” chronicles were edited by Scaligerite historians, who would wipe out every trace of the Middle Ages they could encounter. A lot was blotted out and distorted – however, certain things did survive. All the events in question took place in the XVI-XVII century a.d., or even later.

Still, we aren’t trying to present all of the mediaeval characters listed above as finite originals. There are lots of layers and distortions here as well, and they require a separate body of work (which is performed in Chron5 and Chron6 to a great extent).