New Chronology is a Russian theory that mainstream history is wrongly dated and largely fabricated.>History before about 1000 AD is unreliable and happened much later>Ancient civilizations were actually medieval - "Ancient Rome", "Ancient Greece", Biblical events actually happened 1000-1600 AD>Duplicate history - one real medieval war being retold as several different "ancient" wars.>Phantom time - 1000 years of history were artificially added by the powers-that-be to avoid telling you that.....>Roman Empire was actually a medieval Slavic-Turkic empire centered around RussiaIntelligent people like Gary Kasparov support this view, and there is a big museum in Russia dedicated to it.An actual paralel reality history being written out of distrust for "da west".Any /his/torians read and follow this theory?
>>18364749It looks too much schizo desu(t. schizo and fringe history enjoyer). Still its probably true in some partI am more of Gunnar guy.
>>18364749Doesn't align with the findings of other disciplines line linguistics and genetics which independently corroborate mainstream timings
>>18364749Any time a theory is proposed that amounts to:>actually, MY people were the ones who did literally everything cool, and everyone else is just an envious liar!It's bullshit. Doesn't matter who does it.
>>18365003>I am more of Gunnar guy.Good man. Fomenko relies on many leaps to arrive at his conceptions, but his deconstructions are pretty good.>>18365019You're claiming to have evidence on your side from linguistics and genetics, but what actual evidential disproofs do you possess?
>>18364749>Gary Kasparovyou can be great at chess and still be total retard
>>18365146even just chinese history disproves this very eurocentric theory
>>18365436>eurocentricDon’t slander all of Europe with the illiterate barbarism of the Northern European wastes.
>>18365436That's a weird thing to say because Fomenko cites Chinese history extensively to dispel a coordinated chronology. Again, you are suggesting you have evidence, but you do not say what it is exactly. We've seen China, language, and genes cited but you haven't actually made any arguments with them. That's just his deconstruction. His construction includes Turks primarily, a non-European originating group. In no way does your statement produce a modicum of sense. I recommend reading Fomenko, or at least some general history, before posting.
>>18365443Tree ring dating is an objective argument against the "phantom years".Carbon dating is an objective argument against the "phantom years".Ice lawyer dating in the north is an objective argument against the "phantom years".These are scientific, mathematical, entirely devoid of ideology facts that argue against Fomenko.On the chinese history - the theory makes use of the "dark ages" in Europe to move events around. This doesn't coincide with a dark age in China, and there are logs and timetables for everything.Further, chinese court was veyr savvy of astronomy and they kept astronomical records of star movements and events, which doesn't leave room for a missing millenia of history.Linguistics also keeps track of the evolution and movement of languages, and the idea that greek and/or roman were middle age russian languages is completely absurd. The language diversity would be entirely unrealistic if we remove 1000 years, and the existance of the french/spanish "vulgar latin" makes no sense. We have good ethymology going back to roman times, which you'd need to delete.But its easy to make me explain history in 2000 characters, and nitpick the result.Tell me, why is Fomenko correct? Why is it true that Eurofag liberasts faked history to make themselves feel good, while the real romans are actualy moscow turks? Why do you believe that?
>>18365465It's pretty clear that you googled a list, perhaps used AI to contrive one. Not for one iota of a second did you contemplate employing common sense. Now, nothing you posted actually makes a lick of sense if you carry the logic out, and we could blow through each point and demolish them all, but let's start with the first and allow yourself a moment of reflection.You say that "tree ring dating is an objective argument against phantom years". This is obviously not true. Your assertion, a common complaint on sites like Wikipedia, insists that if a tree or such is dated to 1500 years that it means the year 500 AD exists. That was never the contention. The dating does not actually suggest that the year is 500 AD since dating only tells you the age of the lumber. If an ancient tree ring is from 1500 years ago, it only means that you deduct 1500 from whatever the current year is thought to be. If we find out that we are living in 1700 then the year would adjust to 200 AD for the tree's birth. In order to build a timeline, you would require tree rings involving the disputed events, which you do not have. A collection of pieces would not even dismiss phantom years, rather they would only verify a sample to a period of construction. Tree rings therefore do not disprove phantom years or affirm actual years, they only confirm distance between events and years which does not help to establish chronology. With your very first point you have proven that you have not paid the least bit of attention to the subject. You ought to stop squandering your time looking for arguments and start training your thinking because you are in dire need of common sense. You've post other similar mistakes and it is clear you did not bother to read Fomenko before attempting to rebut his own assessment of Chinese dating. He responds to all of your thoughts in New Chronology. The very first chapter of the very first book in fact.
>>18365474>what are viking ship timbers>what are timbers from medieval cathedralsyou can match tree rings to certain known events, compare them to still living trees, and calculate how many years ago they happenedyou are repeating mantras and slogans, while accusing me of doing the same. cult mentality.and the ice samples + volcanic eruptions + known historical records of them is concrete evidence of how long ago these events occured.
>>18365476>>what are viking ship timbersProtip: putting "what" as a reference to a television cable show that no one has watched in several decades does not make you sound intelligent, and if you whiff your point it is only going to make you appear stupid. Case in point. As for the "viking ship timbers", Viking ships predate the viking period associated with them. This is actually a superb example of what I'm talking about. When you read the Historia Brittonum and the Saxons arrive centuries before the viking period and they're making their appearances in ships and to plunder as they will much later, it actually makes one reconsider whether the viking period should be restricted to 800-1150 at all. Germanic expansion is now seen as one continuous flow of action, and the lack of middle samples between the Saxon invasion and the high Viking period actually promotes the views of Gunnar Heimsohn, though it has no bearing on Fomenko's views. It was very risky to name drop a few items on which you were unprepared to defend. Now you have agreed that dating distances provides ranges, but you have failed to corroborate them to a universal chronology one way or the other, and this particular example backfires spectacularly. I implore you to investigate Germanic history before continuing.
>>18364749Who are the evil masterminds coordinating "western history", when did they start this ruse and how do they control thousands of historians from rival (and sometimes warring) nations?
