1. The Greek and the Biblical chronology

5. The Trojan War of the XIII century a.d. revisited. The version of Herodotus. The Mediaeval Charles of Anjou identified as the Persian king Cyrus

We have to reiterate and make it perfectly clear to the reader that the identification mentioned in the heading means the following: some real mediaeval character whose real biography we might never be able to reconstruct is referred to as Charles of Anjou in some documents, and as the “ancient” king Cyrus in others. Both chronicles would be subsequently misdated and shifted into times immemorial, creating phantom reflections, one of which is nowadays presented to us as the famous Persian king Cyrus.

19a. The decline of the Hohenstaufen dynasty in the XIII century a.d. Kaiser Manfred. The Holy Roman Empire of the X-XIII century a.d. ends with Conrad IV (1237-1254 a.d. according to [64]), its last official emperor. His reign is followed by the war of the XIII century – the main original of the “ancient” Trojan War. Unlike his predecessors, Conrad IV had not been crowned in Rome. The seat of power soon went to Charles of Anjou. The Hohenstaufen dynasty ends with the famous hero Kaiser Manfred (1254-1266 a.d. according to [196]).

19b. The “ancient” Greece. The end of the Heraclid dynasty and the ascension of Croesus. We learn that “the power held by the house of the Heraclids [which appears to be how Herodotus refers to the Hohenstaufens of the XIII century a.d. – A. F.] went to the clan of Croesus” ([163], 1:7, page 13). The name “Croesus” is most probably a distorted version of the word “Kaiser”, or simply “Czar” (Caesar). Croesus is apparently a double of Manfred, the German Kaiser. Likewise his mediaeval counterpart Manfred, the “ancient” Croesus is considered a famous hero.

20a. Kaiser Manfred rules the XIII century Italy (Latinia) for 12 years. Manfred’s reign duration equals 12 years: 1254-1266 a.d. (according to [196]). He is the ruler of Italy, or the country called TL/LT (Latinia). Bear in mind that his phantom reflection is Totila the Goth (541-552), whose unvocalized name transcribes as TTL or TL.

20b. “Ancient” Greece. King Croesus rules in Lydia for 14 years. The “ancient” king Croesus had reigned for 14 years between the alleged years 560 and 546 B. c. ([72], page 193). This is very close to the 12-year reign of the mediaeval Manfred. The “ancient” Croesus had been the ruler of a country known as Lydia, that is, LD or LT. We have already identified Lydia as either Italy or the Empire of Latinia on the territory of Byzantium. Furthermore, the “ancient” Croesus is said to have been the son of Alyattes, which may well be the reverse (Arabic or Hebraic) reading of the Gothic name Totila. Alyattes transcribes as LTT without vocalizations. This is the second time that we come across a superimposition of names when read in reverse: TL for Italy vs. LT for Lydia, and now also LTT for Alyattes vs. TTL for Totila. It is possible that Herodotus had also used Arabic and Hebraic documents in his research, where the text is read from right to left, unlike the European languages. A propos, we see a similar reversal in the superimposition of the mediaeval Charles of Anjou over the “ancient” Narses, qv in Chapter 2 of Chron2. In that case we got NRS (Narses) as the reverse reading of “Caesar Anjou”.

21a. The Biblical Solomon and the Gothic king Totila.

1. 
   We must remind the reader that the war of XIII century a.d. was described by the Bible as the war that had raged during the reigns of Saul, David and Solomon, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. Moreover, the Biblical king Solomon, sage and lawmaker, can be identified as the famous emperor Justinian I, who had lived in the alleged VI century a.d.
   
2. 
   Totila (TTL), king of the Goths, is a crucial character of the Gothic War in the alleged VI century, that is, the phantom reflection of the XIII century war.
   

21b. “Ancient” Greece. Solon and Tellus.

1. 
   Among the contemporaries of the “ancient” Croesus we find the famous Solon, the duplicate of the Biblical Solomon, who isn’t of lesser renown himself. Solon was also known as a prominent lawmaker in the “ancient” Greece ([163], 1:30, page 19).
   
2. 
   Alongside Croesus and Solon, the book of Herodotus often mentions Tellus (TLL unvocalized) in the context of Solon’s meetings with Croesus ([163], 1:30, page 19). He appears to be the reflection of the Gothic king Totila (TTL).
   

22a. The Biblical Moses and the legend of the brazen serpent. According to the research results related in Chapter 6 of Chron1, the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War became reflected in the Biblical description of the exodus of the Jews from Egypt (Mitz-Rome) under the leadership of Moses. We must also point out that Moses happens to be a double of Justinian and Solomon to a large extent, qv in Chron1, Chapter 6. A crucial point in the Biblical tale of Moses is the famous episode with the brazen serpent. We read about “a plague of serpents” punishing the Jews; the Bible regards this event as an omen from above. This happens to be one of the most popular Biblical legends, and it inspired a large number of late mediaeval painters. In Chron6 we tell about the true nature of the “brazen serpent”.

22b. “Ancient” Greece. The legend of snakes in the reign of Croesus. As far as we could find out, the History of Herodotus contains one solitary reference to snakes - in no other place but the part concerned with the reign of Croesus, that is, right where we expect it to be if we are to consider the Graeco-Biblical chronological shift. Herodotus tells us that “the environs of the city suddenly filled up with snakes… Croesus considered this a divine omen, and quite correctly so, as it turned out” ([163], 1:78, page 35). Herodotus pays quite a bit of attention to this event.

23a. In the XIII century a.d. the Frenchman Charles of Anjou invades Italy (Latinia). Let us remind the reader that Charles of Anjou invaded Italy (TL – LT = Latins) in the middle of the XIII century a.d. Thus began the war with Manfred. Charles of Anjou is considered to have been French and a leader of the French troops ([196]). His Italian invasion signifies France entering military action, also known as PRS = “Persia” and P-Russia (White Russia), according to the parallelisms discovered.

23b. “Ancient” Greece. The Persian king Cyrus invades Lydia. Cyrus is a king of Persia, or PRS unvocalized. His invasion into Lydia (LD) signifies Persia entering military action – a powerful state that played an important role in the history of the “ancient” Greece in the alleged VI-V century b.c. ([163]).

Commentary. What does the name “Persia” really stand for? We have already had numerous occasions implying the necessity to identify the “ancient Persia” as either France or Prussia (P-Russia/White Russia). Traces of such linkage can be seen in the very name of the French capital – Paris. Another thing that has to be pointed out in this respect is that the Latin word pars (PRS unvocalized) translates simply as “part”, “land”, or “region” [the authors are referring to the definition contained in the Latin-Russian Dictionary ([237]) – translator]. The Russian military naval charts of the XVIII century still have the legend PARS inscribed on the part depicting Russia. Thus, the map compiled in 1702 with the participation of Peter the Great has “Muscowiae Pars” written alongside the original “Московская страна” (Land of the Muscovites), qv in the Russian Naval Charts of 1701-1750. Copies from originals ([73]). One gets the idea that the word “Pars” may have referred to the entire “Persian Empire”, as well as its separate regions or parts. Then the original general meaning of pars (PRS) became forgotten, the only surviving meaning is “part”. Thus, the word “Persia” may have been used for referring to different provinces of the same Great “Persian” Empire of the XIII-XVI century a.d.

For the sake of space, we shall omit the details pertaining to the “ancient” and the mediaeval events to each other across a 1810-year shift; we shall however point out that the reign of Croesus as dated to the alleged years 560-546 b.c. (according to [72]) corresponds perfectly with the reign of his mediaeval double Kaiser Manfred across a shift of 1810 years (1254-1266 a.d.)

24a. In the XIII century Charles of Anjou annexes Italy (Latinia?) and Greece. The mediaeval Charles of Anjou as Homer’s Aeneas?

In 1268 a.d. Charles of Anjou had put the troops of Conradin, a short-term successor of Manfred, to complete rout, whereby his conquest of Italy was complete. The war of the XIII century ends, and Italy falls under the French (PRS, or P-Russian) rule. It is remarkable that Greece was conquered around the same time. Charles of Anjou thus also becomes an Achaean prince, no less, in the 1278-1285 a.d. period ([195], page 379). Therefore the Trojan War of the XIII century a.d. raged across Byzantium as well as Italy. Apparently, it was none other but Charles of Anjou who got into some of the chronicles under the name of Aeneas, which is a derivative of Anjou, or the word “Noah” (New). Then the tale of the P-Russian (Frenchman), or Charles of Anjou the Frank, or simply “the New King”, is most likely to reflect the story of the Trojan king, who had fled the destroyed Troy (Czar-Grad) in the XIII century, eventually founding a new kingdom. The story of Aeneas is described in Virgil’s Aeneid, for instance. Aeneas the Trojan had arrived in Latinia (Italy); his descendants subsequently founded the city and the kingdom of Rome at some point in the late XIII – early XIV century a.d. Thus, we must be fortunate to have reconstrusted the true story of the foundation of Rome in Latinia. See our book entitled The Dawn of the Horde Russia for details concerning the location of Latinia in that epoch. Sometime later, another group of Trojan fugitives founded the city of Rome on the territory of the modern Italy (possibly, at the time of the Great = “Mongolian” conquest). This must have happened at the end of the XIV century a.d. the earliest. The “ancient” Aeneas also became reflected in the Bible as the patriarch Noah (“The New One”).

24b. “Ancient” Greece. The Persian king Cyrus invades Lydia and Greece.

In the alleged year 546 b.c. king Cyrus annexes Lydia (LT = Latinia?). A shift of 1810 years transforms 546 b.c. into 1264 a.d. The date concurs perfectly with the year 1268 when Charles of Anjou conquered Italy (or TL, qv above). Having finished his conquest of Lydia, the “ancient” king Cyrus invades Greece. “The entire Asia Minor, formerly a Greek territory, became part of the Persian monarchy” ([258], page 168). As we can see, Herodotus gives us a very accurate account of the XIII century events. Apart from that, we keep coming across references to the Persian monarchy on the pages of the History by Herodotus, which stands for either the mediaeval France, or P-Russia (White Russia); these, it turn, may have been names used for one and the same state. Also, Herodotus must be describing the empire of Latinia (LT = LD) on Byzantine territory under the name of Lydia. As a matter of fact, the name Cyrus as used by Herodotus is most likely to be a version of the word “king” – as in “Sir” and “Sire” used in the Middle Ages – “Czar”, in other words.

25a. The occupation of Rome and the Mediterranean region by Charles of Anjou in the XIII century a.d.

1. 
   We already mentioned the fact that many mediaeval authors have called Rome Babylon, and the Roman Empire Babylonia. Charles of Anjou seized Rome; said event may have become reflected in a number of mediaeval chronicles as the occupation of Babylonia.
   
2. 
   The Mediterranean Region is called Mediterraneus in Latin ([237], page 635). Therefore, by having captured Latinia (in Byzantium), or Italy and surrounding territories, Charles of Anjou had conquered the “middle kingdom”.
   

25b. “Ancient” Greece. Cyrus conquers Babylon and the Medes, or the Middle Kingdom.

1. 
   Our prediction is perfectly true. Herodotus tells us that Cyrus proceeded to capture the Babylonian Kingdom. “In the middle of the VIII century [b.c. – A. F.], under the Achaemenids [Cyrus being their representative – A. F.], the Persian state gains great power” ([258], page 168).
   
2. 
   In the middle of the alleged VI century b.c. the Persians [P-Russians?] conquer the Medes, henceforth ruled by a Persian dynasty ([766], page 87). We can therefore come to the conclusion that Medes is the name used by Herodotus for the Mediterranean region.
   

26a. Charles of Anjou and his successor Charles II of Naples in the XIII century a.d. In 1250 a.d. Conrad IV proclaims himself King of Naples, but is defeated by Charles of Anjou four years later; the latter is the de-facto founder of the Neapolitan kingdom in Italy ([196]). His successor, Charles II of Naples, follows the course set by Charles of Anjou, and quite effectively so. Ergo, Charles of Anjou is the founder of the new PRS dynasty (French or P-Russian) in Italy after the decline of the German Hohenstaufen dynasty.

26b. The “ancient” Greece. Cambyses, the son and successor of king Cyrus. “A Persian legend considers Cyrus and his son Cambyses to have been the founders of the Persian kingdom” ([766], page 87). We are beginning to realize that Cyrus is an alias of the mediaeval Charles of Anjou, which makes Cambyses II a different name of Charles II of Naples.

27a. The Biblical tale of Moses. The Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War of the XIII century apparently became reflected in the Biblical legend of the conflict between Moses and the Pharaoh. These events are described in the Exodus, and Moses is the protagonist. The legend of his birth, childhood wanderings in a basket and miraculous salvation by the Pharaoh’s (TRN) daughter is unique for the Bible. At the same time, the main plot of the Biblical tale in question apparently corresponds to a much later epoch, namely, that of the XIV-XV century a.d., qv in Chron6.

27b. “Ancient” Greece. The Greek legend of king Cyrus. The Greek story that tells us of how the “ancient” king Cyrus was born is virtually analogous to the legend of Moses and the first years of his life as related in the Exodus. We find the same motif of separation from parents, wanderings, a foster family and so on that recurs here, qv in [163], 1:109-113, pages 46-48. This tale is also unique for the History of Herodotus.

28a. The reign duration of Charles of Anjou in the XIII century a.d. The de facto reign duration of Charles of Anjou equals 29 years: 1254-1285. 1254 is the year when the reign of Conrad IV had ended; 1285 is the year when Charles of Anjou had died ([196]).

28b. “Ancient” Greece. The reign duration of king Cyrus. King Cyrus reigned for 29 years: allegedly 559-530 b.c. ([72], page 193). We see ideal concurrence with the reign duration of Charles of Anjou. Furthermore, a rigid 1810-year shift forward alters the datings of Cyrus’ reign to 1251-1280, which corresponds perfectly with the reign of Charles: 1254-1285 a.d. ([195] and [196]).

29a. The “legend of a woman” in the XIII century a.d. As we have witnessed on numerous occasions, an important element of the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War is the legend of a woman, often of an erotic character, that serves as casus belli in every version of this war’s history. One should rightly expect Herodotus to tell us a similar story.

29b. “Ancient” Greece. The choice of brides in Babylon. Our expectations are fulfilled. Herodotus embellishes the biography of king Cyrus with a rather unexpected anecdote which must be the echo of this very “legend of a woman” ([163], 1:196-199, pages 73-75). In particular, Herodotus describes a Babylonian (Roman, or Romean?) custom of choosing brides. Potential bridegrooms come to a square where young women are congregated and buy the most beautiful ones ([163], 1:196, pages 73-74). On the other hand, the Babylonian women would come into the sanctuary of Afrodite (cf. the Trojan version, where Aphrodite wins the “goddess contest” and is awarded the apple by Paris, a stranger), sit down and wait for some stranger to “unite with them outside the hallowed ground… the young woman would have to follow the first one to throw her the money without hesitation” ([163], 1:199, pages 74-75). Herodotus gives us a rather detailed account of these customs and then returns to the biography of Cyrus. This somewhat uncanny fragment that we discover in the tale of king Cyrus is apparently a distorted version of the “legend of a woman” that is invariably present in every myth spawned by the Trojan War of the XIII century a.d.

30a. Siege of the capital and the Trojan Horse. In the Trojan = Tarquinian = Gothic War the “legend of a woman” is followed by the outbreak of a war and the siege of a capital: Troy, Naples = New City, Rome or Babylon. See above for the identification of Babylon as Rome in certain mediaeval texts. The siege of the capital (Babylon) is one of the focal points in this war; the “Trojan Horse” (aqueduct) is a very well-known symbol of the Trojan War. One should therefore expect Herodotus to tell us about a “horse” of some significance.

30b. “Ancient” Greece. The Babylonian campaign of Cyrus and a strange holy horse. Our prognosis is confirmed. Cyrus instigates a war with Babylon, at the very beginning of which we come across a peculiar episode involving a sacred white horse that drowns in a river. This event plays an important role in Cyrus’ campaign ([163], 1: 189, page 71). It happened as follows:

“When Cyrus set out to cross the navigable river Gyndes, one of his sacred white horses jumped into the water in its friskiness, trying to cross it. However, the river had swallowed the horse and carried its body away in its current. Cyrus became enraged at the river for such an impertinence, ordering to make it shallow enough for women to cross it without wetting their knees [?! – A. F.] This threat made Cyrus postpone the march to Babylon” ([163], 1:189, p. 71).

What do you think Cyrus did instead of besieging Babylon? He had divided the army in two, placed the soldiers on both banks of the river and made them dig. It took the army the whole summer to transform the river Gyndes into 360 canals, no less ([163]). It was only after this odd task had been over that Cyrus commanded to resume the march to Babylon.

One should be aware that the text of Herodotus that has reached us must have undergone some editing. The XVII century editors took out some fragments and altered others. Apart from that, many things had already been beyond their comprehension. The “360 canals” must have appeared as a result of a distortion or miscomprehension of some sane and logical order of Cyrus by the editor. The part played by the “sacred horse” in the legend of Cyrus is quite obviously rather different from what we find in the Trojan version. However, we shall now see yet another story of the Trojan “horse”, or aqueduct, in the rendition of Herodotus, which is already close enough to the Gothic version relating the siege of Naples (the New City) by Belisarius, commander-in-chief, through the groove of a dried-up aqueduct. See for yourselves.

31a. Belisarius (The Great King) begins his siege of the New City. Let us recollect the siege of Troy = New City (Naples), New Rome, or Rome in the Gothic War of the alleged VI century a.d. Belisarius, the commander of the Graeco-Romean army, invades the country and approaches Rome, fighting a battle with the Goths at the walls of the city. Then Belisarius begins the long and hard siege of the New City (Naples, or New Rome) which is one of the war’s main episodes.

31b. “Ancient” Greece. Cyrus the Great (The Great King) begins his siege of Babylon. This is what Herodotus tells us of this siege: “Next spring the king directed his troops towards Babylon. The Babylonians and their army came out of the city waiting to face Cyrus. When the king had approached the city, the Babylonians rushed into battle, but were defeated and pushed back into the city… having gathered enough provision for many years, they hardly paid any attention to the siege” ([163], 1:90, page 71). Let us remind the reader that “Cyrus” is but a version of the word “Czar” (or Caesar); all of these terms really refer to the same figure.

32a. The futile siege of the New City (Naples) in the Gothic War. The siege of the New City by the Romean Greeks in the alleged VI century a.d. had been a lengthy one, and even led to a certain agitation in the ranks of Belisarius ([196] and [695]). The New City, or Naples, was a strong fortress. It is said that Belisarius had been wanted to discontinue the fruitless siege.

32b. The “ancient” Greece. Thriveless siege of Babylon. Cyrus, King of Persia, had held Babylon under siege for a long time and to no avail. As a result “Cyrus got into quite a predicament, since a great deal of time was wasted on a matter that did not progress in any way at all [the siege]” ([163], 1:90, page 71).

33a. The Gothic War. The stratagem of Belisarius (The Great King) and the aqueduct. Belisarius is suddenly enlightened and resorts to tactical cunning, which allows him to conquer Naples (The New City). Chroniclers are of the opinion that somebody had advised him to infiltrate the New City via a dried-up aqueduct, which was a large dale that started well outside the city limits and led inside. The entrance was blocked by a rock. The besieged did not guard the old aqueduct and appear to have forgotten all about it. They didn’t expect any foes to approach from that direction, qv above as well as in [196] and [695].

33b. “Ancient” Greece. Cyrus the Great (or The Great King), his ruse of war, and the Babylonian river. The ruse of war used by Cyrus to seize Babylon was as follows, according to Herodotus: “Whether following someone’s advice or having realized what had to be done all by himself, Cyrus did the following. He had placed a part of his army near the place where the river was running into the city, and another one – further down the current, where it was flowing out” ([163], 1:191, page 71).

34a. The Gothic War. A special party of Romean Greeks gets into the New City via a dried-up old aqueduct. As we already know from Chapter 2 of Chron2, several hundred Romean Greeks got into the gigantic groove of a dried-up aqueduct. The Trojan version tells us of several hundred warriors hiding in the Trojan “horse”. Bear in mind the phonetic similarity between aqua for “water” and equa for “horse”. According to Homer, the rest of the Trojan army drew away from Troy pretending to retreat and give over with the siege in order to confuse the Trojans. Here we see the army split into two parties once again.

34b. The “ancient” Greece. The invasion of Cyrus and his army into Babylon through the bed of the river that he had drained away. Cyrus orders to draw the river aside; it runs dry, and the first half of Cyrus’ army enters the city catching the besieged completely unawares. Herodotus informs us that “he had ordered the soldiers to enter the city through the riverbed as soon as it had dried up. After that he gathered the non-combatant part of his troops around him and retreated [sic! – A. F.]. The Persian king used a canal to drain the river away and into a lake… thus, the old riverbed became passable” ([163], 1:191, page 71. It is perfectly clear that the tale Herodotus tells us about the dry bed of the river that ran through the city is a slightly altered version of the story of the dried-up aqueduct – the “Trojan Horse”.

35a. The Trojan = Gothic War. The fall of the New City. The Greek/Romean/Roman troops of Belisarius break into Naples (the New City, or the New Rome, or Troy) through the dry aqueduct. The city is gripped by panic, the sudden assault had caught the besieged by surprise, and the fate of the city was sealed – it had fallen to the enemy. Homer describes the capture of Troy in a similar manner: the Greeks suddenly appear from the “belly of the Trojan Horse” and seize Troy.

35b. “Ancient” Greece. The fall of Babylon. According to Herodotus, “after the water in the riverbed had drained away to make the river only knee-deep, the Persians used it for infiltrating Babylon. Had the Babylonians known about the ploy of Cyrus beforehand or noticed his actions in good time, they would naturally… have crushed the foe completely… however, it was the Persians who took the Babylonians by surprise. The city of Babylon had been so big that… those who had lived in its centre didn’t know the periphery had already been captured by the enemy… this is how Babylon had fallen” ([163], 1:191, pages 71-72). What we see is basically a reiteration of the same story as above.

Commentary. Once again we see the mediaeval chroniclers try to do their best and give a honest description of the murky past, studying with the utmost attention the documents written a century or two before their time, perhaps, ones that hardly held together. Herodotus earnestly tries to understand the true nature of the “sacred horse”, as well as the dry bed of either a river or an aqueduct that is used by either the Greeks or the Persians for infiltrating into the town under siege (either Babylon, the New City, or Troy). He forms some subjective opinion of the events as a result, which is then offered to the readers of History by either Herodotus himself or his XVII century editor. The picture is substantially different from the original, yet one can see in it the traces of real events, which gave birth to this plethora of myths and legends.

One can hardly claim the Gothic version with the aqueduct to be the most veracious of all; it may contain serious distortions of the real events. It would be expedient to collect all the phantom duplicates that we have discovered and attempt to write the true summarized history of the Trojan War (which is bound to be a great deal more rational and eventful than its individual distorted versions, such as the Trojan War, the Gothic War etc.

36a. The fall of the Italian Troy (the New Rome?) in the alleged years 1261-1268 a.d. As we have already discovered, the XIII century war ended in 1268 a.d. with the fall of the New City (Naples, the New Rome, as well as the mediaeval Italian Troy), and the death of Conradin in 1268 ([196]). The Latin Empire on the territory of Byzantium ceases to exist virtually around the same time, in 1261, when the Nicaean emperor Michael III Palaiologos seizes New Rome = Constantinople.

36b. “Ancient” Greece. The fall of Babylon in 539 b.c., or 1271 a.d., considering the 1810-year shift. According to Scaligerian chronology, Babylon fell in 539 b.c. ([163], page 508, comment 138). A 1810-year shift transforms this date into 1271 a.d. This new dating all but coincides with 1268, or the date when the war of the XIII century a.d. had ended. The concurrence is very good indeed. Some of the modern commentators assume that Herodotus is referring to the expedition of Darius; however, Herodotus himself makes direct and unequivocal references to the campaign of Cyrus ([163]).

Commentary. Let us stop and reflect for a moment. We see that the chronological formula X = T + 1800 works well and is applicable to a long time interval. The formula suggests that we compare “ancient” events to the ones that took place in the Middle Ages, across a gap of roughly 1800 years. If we are to compare them attentively, we shall soon enough discover obvious proximity of their form-codes.

Now for the next step – comparison. Once again, we witness recurring scenarios; the more steps we make, the more similarities we encounter, and we have made quite a few steps already. The table compiled according to the X = T + 1800 formula took 36 steps, and is far from completion; we are of the opinion that it contains a superimposition of two analogous currents of events, one of them being mediaeval and the other “ancient”. Their concurrence is naturally far enough from ideal – but these currents are amazingly similar to each other if we observe them through the prism of a 1800-year shift.

None of the above would be particularly surprising if we just pointed out one or two “similar biographies”. An abundance of such individual similarities between random characters that mean nothing whatsoever can be found in our age as well. However, a critical analysis of Greek history shows that we are facing a phenomenon of an altogether different nature, and one of the utmost significance, at that. A large number of rather similar biographies lined up into two lengthy currents all of a sudden, each one of them covering a span of several centuries; the mediaeval current resembles the “ancient”, and vice versa. Moreover, both of them obviously allow us a glimpse into one and the same common reality, albeit described in different ways and by different chroniclers, which implies the use of different words as well as different (and often polar) emotional assessment of events. The names and aliases used may also differ substantially – however, most of them do have meaningful translations.

It has to be said that there are no duplications of events within individual currents – all of them are different. In other words, the “ancient biography” of Cyrus doesn’t resemble that of Cambyses I, while the mediaeval “biography” of Charles of Anjou differs from that of Charles II of Naples – every link of the chain is unique; every step is individual and doesn’t resemble previous steps. But every “ancient step” is amazingly similar to its mediaeval double and vice versa – the “ancient biography” of Cyrus is very similar to the mediaeval “biography” of Charles of Anjou, whereas the “biography” of Cambyses II resembles that of Charles II. What could all of this possibly mean?

One can suggest a natural explanation. We have most probably discovered two chronicles that refer to one and the same sequence of real mediaeval events. The chronologists of the XVI-XVII century have left one of the chronicles “intact”, while the other one was declared “ancient” and shifted backwards in time. Nowadays when we have discovered this – primarily by proxy of empirico-statistical methods, we suggest to return the “ancient” chronicle to its rightful place and identify it as a reflection of the mediaeval version. Let us now return to our comparison and move forward along the time axis.

37a. The Gothic War. Commander-in-chief Narses had been “wronged because of a woman”.

Let us remind the reader that Narses, the military leader who had succeeded Belisarius (likewise Odysseus, or Ulysses, who acts as the successor of Achilles) was “greatly wronged because of the empress”, qv in Chapter 2 of Chron2.

37b. “Ancient” Greece. King Cyrus dies “because of a woman”. His troops are crushed by Queen Tomyris, who desecrates the corpse of Cyrus ([163], 1:214, page 79).

Commentary. The frequency of references to the name “Cyrus” in Greek history. We shall now witness how the very name “Cyrus” – that is, “Czar”, “Sir”, or “Sire”, had most probably been introduced in the XIII century Greece. The Scaligerites will obviously go on about the “revival” of the “ancient” name Cyrus after centuries of oblivion. Ferdinand Gregorovius, the famous German expert in Greek and Roman history, tells us the following: “Due to the world fame of the city of Athens, Otho de la Roche decided to title himself with the name of the actual city – at least, the Franks and even the Pope call de la Roche Sire d’Athenes or dominus Athenarum in official documents. This modest title of “Sire” was distorted by the Greeks who have transformed it into the word “Cyrus” from their language, which had subsequently grown into the majestic title of Megaskyr (The Great Ruler). However, it would be erroneous to explain this title by the fact that it had been used by the former Byzantine rulers of Athens, since there is nothing to confirm it” ([195], page 151).

We have conducted the following simple research. The book of Gregorovius entitled Mediaeval History of Athens ([195]) is a fundamental œuvre, inasmuch as the scope of references to original sources is concerned, and it covers the interval between the alleged I century b.c. and the XVIII century a.d. Gregorovius gives us a sequential, century-by-century rendition of all the main documents related to the history of mediaeval Athens and Greece in some way. We have analyzed every page of Gregorovius’ voluminous work ([195]), marking every year containing a reference to the name Cyrus on the time axis. Let us emphasize that we have counted every reference to the name regardless of context. As a result, we found out that the name Cyrus is most often used in the very documents that are dated to 1207-1260 a.d. – pages 151-188 (4) of [195].

We proceed to find out that the name Cyrus hardly surfaces anywhere in the entire volume of [195] outside the XIII century a.d. (in the entire span of I-XVII century a.d.); all we have to add is that a chronological shift of 1810 years – or, better still, a close 1778-year shift, makes this mediaeval peak of references to “Cyrus” identify as a manifestation of the famous Persian king Cyrus in the history of the “ancient” Greece. Let us sum up.

38a. The peak of references to the name “Cyrus” in the XIII century a.d. The simple experiment described above allowed us the discovery of a single distinct frequency peak of references to the name of Cyrus in the entire volume of the fundamental oeuvre ([195]). There are hardly any mentions of the name outside the scope of the XIII century.

38b. “Ancient” Greece. The frequency of references to the name Cyrus peaks in the alleged VI century b.c. We observe a superimposition of the “ancient” peak over the mediaeval after a 1800-year shift. Scaligerian history contains a distinct frequency peak of references to the name Cyrus in the “ancient” Greek history of the alleged VI century b.c. Both peaks – the “ancient” and the mediaeval, correspond with each other perfectly, if we are to consider the 1810-year shift, or, better still, a shift of 1778 years.

Commentary. Why does F. Gregorovius make this sudden yet very appropriate allusion to the “ancient” Trojan War in his account of the war of the XIII century a.d.? We have already discovered the XIII century to be the epoch of the great war that became reflected in different sources under different names – the Trojan War, the Tarquinian War, the Gothic War and so on. The fall of the New Rome = Constantinople = Homer’s Troy = the Evangelical Jerusalem took place in either 1204 or 1261, along with the fall of the Latin Empire whose capital had been in Constantinople ([195]). The war in Italy and the fall of the New City = Naples are dated to the same epoch – around 1250-1268 a.d. ([196]).

And so, in his rendition of the events of 1250-1270 a.d., F. Gregorovius make an unexpected yet very timely reference to the “ancient” Trojan War, quoting the mediaeval chronicle of Muntaner, a contemporary of Dante. The quotation is question is of the utmost interest as well, and we already cited it above: “In exactly the same manner Ramon Muntaner, a Catalan historian and a contemporary of Dante, was imagining Homer’s Menelaius as a ‘Duke of Athens’” ([195], page 188 (6).

Thus, Ferdinand Gregorovius, who knew both the “ancient” and the mediaeval history of Greece perfectly well, cannot help pointing out the duplicates, or similar events, which he recognizes when he runs into them time and again. Therefore, he mentions the “ancient” Trojan War just as he describes the events of the XIII century a.d.