1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

3. The great “ancient” Greek colonization as the mediaeval crusades

7a. The X-XIII century empire and the seven kings of Regal Rome as described by Livy. Titus Livy describes the Holy Roman Empire of the alleged years 962-1250 a.d. as Regal Rome ([482]), telling us of its seven rulers. There were more than seven in the empire of the X-XIII century; however, we already demonstrated in Chapter 2 of Chron2 that Livy was most probably reluctant to delve deep into details and would often unite several rulers into one, which resulted in the existence of seven “royal sections”.

7b. “Ancient” Greece. The six kings of Herodotus. If we are to move the Scaligerian dating of Herodotus’ work forward by 1810 years, we shall discover the following rulers described by Herodotus to become superimposed over the epoch of the X-XIII century: Candaules and Gyges [possibly Gog – A. F.], Ardis [the Horde? – A. F.], Sadyates, Alyattes [possibly a reference to the Latins, or “Liudi” (“the people”) – A. F.], and Croesus [apparently, “Czar” or “Kaiser” – A. F.], qv in [163]. Six kings altogether. Herodotus doesn’t appear to know all that much about them, describing them in a rather vague and discursive manner – nevertheless, he names six rulers, which is close to Livy’s figure of seven. However, the epoch in question remains shrouded in mystery for Livy as well.

8a. The mediaeval crusades. The epoch of the crusades (the alleged years 1099-1230 a.d.) is of the utmost importance to the history of both Europe and the Orient due to the colonization of the presumably oriental lands, multiple wars, and the foundation of new cities and crusader states on the conquered territories. It is possible that what we really see is an account of the Great = Mongolian conquest of Europe, qv in Chron5 and Chron6.

8b. “Ancient” Greece. The epoch of the great Greek colonization that falls on the alleged VIII-VI century b.c. is a very important one in the history of the “ancient” Greece. A shift of 1810 years shall locate its early days (as well as those of “classical” Greece, qv in [766], page 46 ff) right in the X century a.d., or the beginning of the crusade epoch of the late XII – XIII century shifted backwards. Apparently, the origins of the “ancient” Greece cannot possibly predate the XII century a.d. “The epoch of the Great Greek Expansion (VIII-VI century b.c.) marks the transition from the epical Greece of Homer to Classical Greece” ([766], pages 46-47). The description of Greek colonization is basically in line with the general concept of the crusade epoch, or the alleged XI-XIII century a.d. It is noteworthy that the regions presumed colonized during the expansion are the very same ones that had attracted the crusaders in the Middle Ages. The historian V. S. Sergeyev is perfectly right to tell us the following about Classical Greece: “the poleis were rather diminutive city-states that resembled the mediaeval republican city-states of Italy” ([766], page 47).

9a. The possible beginning of “documented history” in the IX-X century a.d. According to fig. 3.1, the written history of human civilization that had reached our day begins with the epoch of the X century the earliest. Earlier events have apparently failed to become reflected in writing altogether. It is possible that the very concept of literacy came to existence somewhere around that time. Thus, the history of the epochs predating the X-XI century is sadly not recorded anywhere and therefore cannot be subjected to reconstruction nowadays.

9b. “Ancient” Greece. The early period of literacy. The VIII century b.c. (that is, the X century a.d. after a shift of 1810 years) is considered the earliest epoch of literacy in the “ancient” Greece. All we know about earlier periods is a number of myths and vague recollections. V. S. Sergeyev, for instance, begins his more or less detailed account of Classical Greek history in [766] with this exact epoch.

10a. The Basileis in mediaeval Constantinople. Mediaeval Greece was de facto under Byzantine rule at the time ([195]). A Byzantine ruler would thus be titled “Basileus”. The crusades are supposed to have played a crucial role in the history of the Mediterranean region in general and Greece in particular.

10b. “Ancient” Greece. “Ancient” Greek basileis. It is supposed that the “ancient” Greek poleis (city-states) of the alleged VII-VI century b.c. were ruled by the basileis ([766], page 55). We see the “ancient” title of Basileus coincide with the one used in the Middle Ages completely: Basileus = Basileus. Historians tell us that “the expansion of the VIII-VI century b.c. had been the key factor in the further historical evolution of Greece” ([258], page 129).

4. Epoch of the tyrants

11a. The Hohenstaufen dynasty of the XII-XIII century and the name TRQN. One of the most important periods in the mediaeval history of XII-XIII century Rome is the decline of the Holy Roman Empire, particularly the 1138-1254 a.d. reign of the Swabian Hohenstaufen dynasty, which we have already identified as the Gothic dynasty in the history of the Third Roman Empire and the Tarquinian dynasty as described by Titus Livy ([482]). In this case the Hohenstaufen dynasty becomes quite obviously linked to the name TRQN or TRN which we find in every version of the XIII century war.

11b. Tyranny epoch in the “ancient” Greece.

A 1810-year shift identifies the “Classical” Greece of the alleged VII-VI century b.c. as the mediaeval epoch of the XII-XIII century a.d., where we come across the name TRQN or TRN. Therefore one should rightly expect the very same name to surface somewhere in the “ancient” Greece of the alleged VII-V century b.c. This prediction of ours doesn’t take long to come true in the most spectacular manner, since we find out that the period of the alleged VII-V century b.c. bears the official name of “the tyranny epoch” ([258]). Tyrant is also a variation of the unvocalized root TRN (likewise “Pharaoh”, by the way).

Commentary. This is what historians themselves tell us: “The next period [the one that followed the great expansion – A. F.] in the development of the Greek (slave-trader) state had been the epoch of tyranny” ([766], page 57). Thus, we see that “ancient” Greek history does little else but replicate the history of mediaeval Rome and Byzantium – in particular, the history of Rome, or Romea, and to a much greater extent, at that. Let us remind the reader that the mediaeval name for Southern Italy had been “Greater Greece” ([267], pages 282-283; also [196]). It is therefore little wonder that “ancient” Greek history should prove a carbon copy of the XII-XV century chronicles from mediaeval Italy and Byzantium. This mechanism is at its most obvious once we begin the comparison of the Greek tyranny of the Peisistratids to the tyranny of the Tarquins in Regal Rome (according to Livy).

We are told the following: “the title of most important event of Athenian history that had taken place in the decades that followed the reforms of Solon can be safely ascribed to the political coup d’état that brought forth the dictatorship of a single person – the tyranny of Pisistratus” ([258], page 146). By the way, the Greek Solon happens to be a duplicate of the Biblical Solomon – not just name-wise, but also due to being similarly involved in lawmaking. The conclusion that we come to is that Solon/Solomon had lived in the XI-XIII century a.d. the latest. Here we also see a good concurrence with the independent results of dynastic dating that identify the Biblical kingdoms as the Holy Empire of the X-XIII century, and also the Habsburg (Nov-Gorod?) Empire, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6.

12a. Tarquin and Porsenna (or the names PRS and TRN).

1. 
   In Livy’s Regal Rome, the last king of the Tarquinian dynasty, had reigned between the alleged years 534 and 509 b.c.
   
2. 
   King Tarquin the Proud had reigned for 26 years.
   
3. 
   We keep coming across the names PRS and TRN in the history of the Tarquinian War. We get the unvocalized name PRSTRN when we combine the two.
   

12b. The “ancient” Greece. The Peisistratid tyranny (unvocalized name spells as PSSTRT).

1. 
   The tyranny of the Peisistratids had reigned in Athens between the alleged years 560 and 510 b.c. ([258]). This epoch all but coincides with the epoch when Tarquin the Proud had ruled in Rome. By the way, [163] on page 584 dates the reign of “Pisistratus, the famous tyrant of Athens” differently, namely, to the alleged years 541/540 – 528/527 b.c. The result is nevertheless the same: the reign of Pisistratus the tyrant coincides chronologically with that of Tarquin (TRQN).
   
2. 
   Pisistratus had ruled for 33 years (560-527 b.c.), or 13 years according to a different version, qv above.
   
3. 
   The name “Pisistratus” transcribes as PSSTRT without vocalizations, which is very similar to the unvocalized name PRSTRN that we encounter in the history of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War, qv above.
   

Let us point out that many important events took place during the reign of Pisistratus. A shift of 1810 years forward places Pisistratus somewhere in the chronological vicinity of 1250-1280 a.d. The reign of Pisistratus is associated with “the construction of the temple consecrated to Athena Pallas in the Acropolis, as well as that of Zeus the Olympian and… the temple of Demeter… he had also introduced the pan-Athenian festivities as well as the Dionysian celebrations to honour Dionysus… the Athenian aqueduct was also built under Pisistratus” ([766], page 71). Once again we see an aqueduct linked to a tyrant and recall the popular image of the “Trojan horse” from the Gothic/Trojan War.

13a. Tarquin seizes power in Rome, but gets ousted subsequently.

1. 
   According to Livy, Tarquin the Proud captured the throne of Regal Rome, and it had brought the Tarquinian clan to a position of power ([482]).
   
2. 
   After that, King Tarquin is exiled from Rome as a result of a rebellion.
   
3. 
   The revolt against Tarquin is led by two heroes – Brutus (Brother?), and Publius Valerius.
   

13b. “Ancient” Greece. Pisistratus the tyrant comes to power by force, and gets banished afterwards.

1. 
   In the alleged year 560 b.c. Pisistratus seizes power in Athens by force and brings on a tyrannical reign ([258], page 146).
   
2. 
   Pisistratus then becomes exiled from Athens by his political opponents ([258], pages 146-147).
   
3. 
   The rebellion against Pisistratus is headed by two politicians: Megacles and Lycurgus ([258], page 146).
   

14a. Tarquin’s futile attempts to return power.

1. 
   King Tarquin makes several attempts of getting the throne back by force ([482]). He does not succeed.
   
2. 
   Tarquin the Proud is the head of the entire regnant clan of the Tarquins.
   

14b. The “ancient” Greece. Pisistratus seizes the throne again.

1. 
   Pisistratus and his army storm the walls of Athens several times; his attempts of returning to power succeed twice, qv on pages 146-147 of [258].
   
2. 
   Just like the Roman Tarquin, Pisistratus heads a clan, two members of which (his sons) reign as tyrants already after the death of Pisistratus ([258], pages 149-150).
   

15a. The war and the defeat of the Tarquins. The Tarquinian War marks the final stage of this struggle, according to Titus Livy. It ends around the alleged year 509 b.c. A shift of 1810 years forward shall date these events to roughly 1300 a.d. The war finally puts the Tarquins to rout.

15b. The “ancient” Greece. The conspiracy and the defeat of the tyrants. The final period of the struggle against the tyrants falls over the alleged years 514-510 b.c. A shift of 1810 years forward places these events in the epoch of circa 1300 a.d. The conspiracy against the tyrants is led by Harmodius and Aristogiton. The war ends with the defeat and murder of the tyrants ([258]).

16a. The dawn of a new epoch in Rome. Tarquin flees to Porsenna.

1. 
   The end of the Tarquinian rule marks a breakpoint in the history of the “ancient” Rome (Romea/ Byzantium?). It signifies the end of Regal Rome as described by Livy and the beginning of the new republican epoch.
   
2. 
   The banished king Tarquin retreats to join forces with king Larth Porsenna (L-Horde PRSN). Larth Porsenna is an important participant of the Tarquinian War ([482]).
   

16b. The “ancient” Greece. The last tyrant flees to the Persians.

1. 
   The fall of the tyrants is one of the key events in the history of the “ancient” Greece. It is covered extensively in a large number of original sources.
   
2. 
   After the collapse of the Peisistratid tyranny in Athens, Hippias, the surviving son of Pisistratus, fled to the Persian king ([766], page 72). It is most likely that Livy’s PRSN/Porsenna and the Persian king (PRS) are both reflections of the same mediaeval original from an epoch that cannot predate the XIII century a.d.
   

17a. The Tarquinian War. The heroes are accused of betraying the Roman cause. Bear in mind that we encounter the case of “the treason of Valerius the hero” in the history of the Tarquinian War. He was accused of betraying Rome and her cause ([482]). We observe the same kind of accusation in other versions – the Gothic and the Trojan, qv above.

17b. “Ancient” Greece. The crimination of the liberator heroes. “The murder of the tyrant had initially caused a great outrage amongst the Athenians, and they sentenced the killers to death” ([766], page 72). It is remarkable that the we find the very same scenario in another phantom reflection of the XIII century war, namely, the civil war in Rome of the alleged I century b.c., where the Roman populace got filled with indignation at the murder of Julius Caesar and tried to punish his murderers, Brutus (Brother?) and Cassius, who had to flee ([660]), Volume 2.

18a. “Ancient” Rome. All of the above notwithstanding, the heroes eventually become honoured for their victory over tyranny. The Romans soon change their attitude towards the killers of the tyrant. Titus Livy refers to Valerius and Brutus (Brother?) as to great heroes who liberated Rome from the tyranny of the Tarquins ([482]). Plutarch eulogizes Brutus as the great deliverer who had freed Rome from the yoke of Caesar’s tyranny ([660], Volume 2). See more about the superimposition of the two Brutuses in Chapter 2 of Chron2.

18b. The “ancient” Greece. The accusations are eventually replaced by panegyrics in honour of the heroic tyrant-slayers. What we see here is a similar change of opinion when the Greeks begin to glorify the tyrannicides. “Harmodius and Aristogiton, the tyrannicides, were honoured with copper statues erected on the city square, and their offspring were dignified greatly” ([766], page 72). It has to be pointed out that this “change of attitude” from the part of the “ancient” Greeks is described in terms similar to those used by Plutarch for referring to Brutus and Cassius, as well as Titus Livy when he tells us about Brutus and Valerius. We learn the following of the “ancient” Greek version of this historical episode: “One could hear the song in honour of Harmodius and Aristogiton, the saviours of the people’s freedom, sung at every feast” ([766], page 72).