As we already said in the preface, the creation in the Middle Ages of a chronology which predominates even today in historiography, by no means was caused God knows from where by the whim of the lovers of antiquity who had emerged.

  This is in principle an important aspect which demands explanation. Otherwise, it will be complicated to understand what happened with the history, for example, ofEurope in Scaliger's accounts and of his followers. 

     The political situation in the European countries, the aspiration of those holding supreme power to demonstrate to the whole world the antiquity of their race and on this basis to confirm the legitimacy of claims for leadership both within the state and in the international arena have become the chief stimulus in the creation of a traditional chronology. Well, where there's a demand, the supply springs up too.

  Under all monarchal courts immediately are found literate and in many instances, talented people who carry out the most important political orders.

     It is clear, not unselfishly. Often even his life depended on the talent and eagerness of the writer. It didn't cost the all-powerful kings and dukes anything to send an untalented scribbler to the block if his writing didn't suit them.

    And there was another, powerful stimulus:  rewards, honors, scientific titles, and the benevolence of the monarchs. By the way, this works in out time, too.  Not long ago, a certain author showed in his writing that the representatives of the now ruling houses of Europe are the descendants of Jesus Christ!  (D. Kalyuzhny and A. Zhabinsky.  "The Other History of Wars.")  They complimented him for it and an English prince even conferred some awards.

       But let us return to Joseph Scaliger, the founder of the traditional chronology who lived and labored in that epoch. Then, besides the dynastic, the question of the origin of the European peoples was one of the most pressing. The process of their formation in the modern sense of this word took place, and each of them, naturally, wanted to know who the ancestors were.

      The roots were called various things:  both biblical and Greek and barbarian, that is, German and English. The Trojan version of the origin of the French was popular.  The historians situated the centers of ancient cultures in their works not only in Greece and Rome, but also in Spain, England and France. Everything depended on in which of the capitals the writers were living. The very fundamental requirements for roots were equal and common everywhere: the more ancient, the better, and the more "antique" writings are found, the more convincing.

      He didn't erect his creations in an empty place, but to a significant degree, adhered to the generally accepted ideas of his epoch. In particular, to the very popular idea of the "succession of kingdoms" or the "succession of monarchies." According to this idea, some kind of a center of worldwide supremacy - a capital of the main king, of an emperor, existed from the very beginning of human history. At that, it changed its location several times.

     As a result, the history somehow was divided into three parts - three monarchies. The first was called the Babylonian. At first they called it Assyrian (Chaldean), then - Persian-Medean. But the capital remained the same - Babylon.

     The second is the Greek or Macedonian with a capital in Alexandria.            It had been thought, and even now it is thought in traditional history that the founder of the monarchy, Alexander of Macedonia made Alexandria his capital.

  Finally, the Roman monarchy. They called it the last worldwide monarchy. It was split into the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. They, for their part, were broken up into a multitude of independent states.

    Such is the overall plan. As the adherents of the new chronology note, its traces are maintained in modern history textbooks. Only instead of "monarchies" the term "succession of civilizations" is used. The first civilization arose in the area between two rivers - the "Babylonian Kingdom," then "ancient" Greece appeared, AND, finally - Italy - the "Roman Empire." (Gleb Nosovskiy, Anatoliy Fomenko "A New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome")

  If one tries to examine the idea of the "three kingdoms" in more detail, then questions unavoidably arise which demand explanations. How in general was the idea born about worldwide monarchies? Why in particular are there three of them and not two or five? On what grounds were the kingdoms placed in the pages of the historic works, in particular in such an order and not in any other kind?

     The adherents of the traditional chronology confidently answer that these are the results of archaeological research, an analysis of the compositions of the ancient authors, linguistic investigations and so on and so forth.  Analyzing these questions in particular, scholars of many generations have created truly vast libraries of works. Hundreds of books, dissertations, surveys, and abstracts written, for example, one after the other about Ancient Greece alone. Is it possible their authors relied on sources which didn't contain a grain of truth, didn't reflect the real situation of things?  That doesn't happen, they tell us. And they will be right.

      The inventive nature of "ancient" sources consists not in the fact that the events described in them and their heroes are fantastic, but in the fact that they, these events, which occurred in the Middle Ages, have been renamed and spread over various epochs and countries in accordance with the ideological and other purposes of noblemanly clients.

     In connection with this, the notion of a "worldwide monarchy" is of special interest for us. In Scaliger's epoch there are no such monarchies.  There exists, as already has been said, a multitude of independent states. From where, then, was the idea of "a center of worldwide supremacy" taken?  I doubt from the imagination of historians. The memory of such a center of such a monarchy was still very fresh in the 16^th century. Yes, there was a worldwide empire, at that, according to historic measurements, very recently, and all the states, which arose on its ruins, all the life of the people still bore on itself the indelible stamp of this grandiose state structure, the first in the history of mankind, under the name of the Byzantine Empire.

   As regards the quantity of "worldwide empires," then it needs to be said that Scaliger's predecessors and he himself didn't write history, but computed it. There were whole trends in just such a method of historiography - numerology, cabala and astrology. Scaliger's older contemporary, Jean Boden, composed a solid work, "A Method of Easy Determination of History," in which he showed in particular, how, in his opinion, to detect empires.

    He wrote: "The square of 12 is 144, and the cube is 1,728.  Not one empire in its existence exceeded the value of the sum of these numbers; therefore, the larger numbers should be rejected. Of the spherical numbers included in the great number there are four - 125, 216, 625 and 1,296.  With the aid of several of these numbers. . . . . we permit ourselves to study the miraculous changes of almost all states. . .  . . Starting with the cube of 12, we shall find that the monarchy of the Assyrians from King Ninus to Alexander the Great embodies this number precisely. . . It would be more accurate to say that a single monarchy of the Assyrians and Persians existed than there allegedly existed two different monarchies. In a different case, we are supposed to distinguish the kingdom of the Chaldeans, Medians and Parthians from the Assyrian-Persian monarchy. . ."

       It is impossible to distinguish; otherwise, the great number will be broken. That is, the author discovered an entire world empire, as they say, at the tip of a pen, as a century later the astronomers Leverrier and Adams calculated the planet Neptune. Actually, the "perception of history" is an extraordinarily easy method. And discoveries, as we see, of a strictly limited quantity of empires.

       Relying on an understanding of numerology, the author also easily and naturally finds other chronological dates of various states in antiquity. He juggles the names like a magician:

      "As regards the cube of seven, there also are many examples. This number was chosen by Moses for the establishment of a great festival. From the victory of the Jews over Haman with the aid of Esther to the victory over Antioch, 343 years had passed, and both that and the other victory were gained on the 13^th day of the 12^th month, which the Jews call Adar. . . That same number of years had passed from the time, when Augustus I established control, until the time when Constantine the Great achieved domination.  The kingdom of the Persians, from Cyrus to Alexander, lasted 210 years - a number which is formed from 30 whole sevens."

     The whole book is built on such arguments. For Boden, history is not the past of mankind, but a design created as a result of manipulations with numbers. He is a faithful adherent of the Masons and numerologists who impart a mystical essence to numbers.

     It wouldn't be worth talking about Boden's exercises if they weren't used and developed in the works of Scaliger and his followers, especially Petavius. The astrologers, numerologists and prophets are who laid the basis of the traditional chronology. And this is appropriate. One need remember that other methods for the analysis of history still didn't exist then. There were and could not be any other fundamental principles besides those designated in the Bible and in a number of mystical studies.

    One need recognize that they were executing a task of grandiose complexity:  they were forming a plan of the development of all world history! No one after them has undertaken such a fundamental problem. They wrote, more than once, numerous volumes of writings with the envelopment of the majority of countries and peoples, but in the main it was the very same plan of Scalger and Petavius.

     What is especially important, in this plan such a structural-forming medieval result also is used as the theory of historic cycles.

       Quite a number of the names of the disciples of their theory have been preserved. Traditional historiography relates them to various epochs and peoples.  Here are both Ancient Greece, and Rome, and China and Central Asia. The Roman historian Polybius supposedly as early as before the start of the Christian Era wrote a 40 volume "General History," in which it was based on the notion of "historic cycles."  

      Polybius and his confederates examined the history of society as a rotation, as a movement along a closed circle with a periodic return to the starting point. This meant that mankind moves endlessly along a wheel, stretched out in time.

  Then an understanding of the cycle as a spiral began to prevail, the repetition of analogous, but distinct phases in a forward movement, an undulating and progressive development.  (Yuriy Yakovets "Cycles.  Crises.  Forecasts"  1999)  As is explained in the books on "cycles," all great phenomena and facets of life also have their own "spirals," and each country, it is clear, also. They endlessly are superimposed on each other, resembling on the whole the entangled turns of barbed wire.

    We will not examine the validity of such a vision of history.  Perhaps there are its own reasons in it. Let us say only that it too now is enjoying relative popularity. In the times of Scaliger it was overwhelming. And it allowed the chronologists to arrange historical events as the theory suggested.  And if they discovered that, let us assume, on the coil of "ancient" Greece, which corresponds to today's coil, there is no event similar to it, that has happened now, and then they sent a duplicate of such an event into extreme antiquity. Since history is repeated, that means at some time the very same thing happened as today.

   At the same time, history should have been sufficiently consistent and allowed to fabricate solid and convincing genealogical rulers and to fill the past as if it were with significant events which have great moral and educational significance for the descendants.  Scaliger and his followers in the literal sense of the word created history and were convinced that they were doing a good thing.  

            They fabricate history, unfortunately, in all epochs, including too in ours, and in all countries, recasting it in accordance with present political interests.           

      Let us look at how the medieval reality of "ancient" Greece was reflected in history. What do we know about this country?

   We know, to our delight, much. To our delight for the reason that none of the originals of the "ancient Greek" compositions ever were in the hands of even the most conscientious researchers. Some are only references in works ascribed to various chroniclers, frequently also to the legendary.

     At that, these works appeared after the millennium of the "Dark Ages," when no one and nowhere recalled anything about a Greece and a Rome. In the Middle Ages themselves both the volumes of ancient historians and the poems of Homer and also of other Hellas poets, and legends and myths were found suddenly. . . Where they were hidden for ten centuries, no one knows. And they still say that there are no miracles in the world.

     But we will not find fault.

    The traditional views are such:  the history of Ancient Greece starts from the turn of the 3rd and 2nd millennia B.C. -- with the rise of the first state formations on the island of Crete, and ends in the 2^nd - 1^st centuries B.C., when the Greek and Hellenistic states of the Eastern Mediterranean were conquered by Rome and included as part of the Roman Mediterranean power.   

     We shall single out several bright moments in this history, which are the most well-known to the readers.  One of the most popular is the Trojan War, described in the poems of the great blind poet, Homer. Historians have been drawing from them over the centuries one or the other signs of the past. The poems "Iliad" and "Odyssey" became, per se, a source for the construction of a whole section of Greece's history.

   The Trojan War, as the traditional historians write, is a war of the Achaeans against Troy at the end of the 13^th century B.C.  

     According to mythological tradition, the abduction by Paris, the son of the Trojan king Priam, of the beautiful Helen, the wife of the King of Sparta, Menelaus was the casus belli.  Then irregulars of kings from almost all the areas and cities of Greece, who at sometime had laid claim to Helen's hand and were connected by a vow to always aid him whose wife she became, were assembled.  According to Iliad there were 100,000 warriors in the Achaean force, and 1,186 ships.  

    An attempt to obtain Helen's return by negotiations (the embassy of Menelaus and Odysseus to Priam) failed, and a siege of the city began which lasted more than 9 years.

      The events of the final, 10^th year of the war make up the content of "Iliad."  Apollo's priest, Chryses, asked Agamemnon to return to him a daughter who had been taken captive, Chryseis, but was refused.  Apollo, who had been aiding the Trojans, inflicted a plague on the Achaean forces.  In order to propitiate the god, Agamemnon returned Chryses' daughter, but in exchange took Briseis from Achilles as his prisoner.  The angry Achilles refused to take part in the war.  The Achaeans began to meet with failure after this, and many heroes were casualties.  

     Only when the Trojans burst into the Achaean camp and began to threaten the ships did Achilles send his friend Patroclus, having given him his own armor.  The Trojans ran to the protection of the fortress walls, but Patroclus died by Hector's hand.  Achilles, avenging his friend and in new armor forged by Hephaestus, entered the battle and killed Hector, desecrating his body. Hector's father, the old Priam, on coming to Achilles prayed for the return of his son's body.  At the sight of the father's grief, Achilles softened and gave back Hector's body.  "Iliad" ends with the funerals of Patroclus and Hector.               

    Excavations in the places referred to in the myths about the Trojac war supposedly confirm the historicity of a huge military clash of Achaeans with the tribes of the northwestern part of Asia Minor in the beginning of the 13^th Century B.C.  So write the traditional historians.

     They suppose that the fall of Troy occurred in 1225 B.C. The precision of the date is astonishing if one considers that no written sources which confirm it exist. Well and when did Homer live?  According to the Columbian Encyclopedia (U.S.), the poems "Iliad" and Odyssey were written by the poet for an aristocratic audience in Asia Minor before 700 B.C. That is, if one is to believe this report, the author lived 500 years after the war. Just how come one can write beautiful verses and about events of such long standing? One can expect everything from poets. But, you see, Homer didn't write anything, not ever:  he was blind.  Moreover, his poems, written in small print, take up 700 pages!

   Let us assume Homer possessed a staggering memory and recalled all the lines composed by him. But you see, the poems weren't written during down his lifetime as well. Commentators report to readers that a special commission in Athens wrote down the "Iliad" and Odyssey" for the first time several hundred years later.  How did these works then get to the commission?

     The traditional historiography promotes the following version:  fellow citizens of the poet learned by heart all 700 pages, then retold them to new audiences, who in their own turn, to the next generations, and thus it was continued for several centuries.

     For the sake of fairness, it must be said that the 20^th century knows several outwardly similar cases. When the Kirghiz, who live in Central Asia, received their written language for the first time (the first half of the 20^th century), their national oral epos "Manas" finally was fixed on paper, the text of which was handed down from generation to generation.  In Uzbekistan in that very same decade, the "Alpamysh" epos was written down. Musicians and poets used special techniques and methods for the fixation of the famous Uzbek "Makom," the popular sung legends of hoary antiquity.  

   It would seem, in relation to "Iliad" and "Odyssey," one also can assume such a variant. But all the trouble is in the fact that these poems over many centuries are the "Dark Ages"! - they were not known to anyone. The traditional historians themselves write: "In medieval Europe, they knew Homer only through the quotations and references from Latin writers and Aristotle.  At the end of the 14^th century, the Italian humanists became more closely acquainted with Homer. . . Only in 1723 did the first translation of the "Iliad" appear, done by the poet Anton Maria Salvini".   

    It is asked, where then was the text of the Homeric compositions for nearly 2,000 years?  In which heads were they kept? And did a blind poet by the name of Homer exist in any event?

    Vico (1668-1744), the author of the work "Principles of the New Science Concerning the Common Nature of Nations" thought that the Homeric poems were written by various authors and in various epochs. He, as also many others, started from the works themselves. They were written as magnificent verse, polished to perfection, and strike one with a wealth of vocabulary and persistent expressions, and this testifies beyond controversy to the fact that the author or authors were grounded in the solid poetical traditions of their time. However, we know neither Homer's predecessors nor followers. As early as the 20^th century, there existed the opinion that Homer created in proud solitude. On the other hand, the composition of the poems is loose, full of long, drawn out passages, unnecessary insertions and digressions, which don't relate to the subject. For specialists, this is serious evidence of the fact that more than one author had art and part in the creation of Iliad and "Odyssey."

      A question about the authorship of the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" was put forward in 1795 also by the German scholar Friedrich August Wolf in a forward to an edition of the Greek text of the poems. Wolf considered the creation of a large epos in an illiterate period as impossible, suggesting that the tales were created by various poets.

    Scholars were divided into "analysts," followers of Wolf's theory (the German scholars Karl Lachmann, A Kirchhoff with his theory of "small eposes;" G. Herman and the English historian George Grote with their "theory of the basic kernel," in Russia F.F. Zelinskiy shared it) and the "unitarians," adherents of a strict unity of the epos (the translator of Homer, Johann Heinrich Voss and the philosopher Gregor Wilhelm Nitzsch, Friedrich Schiller, Johann Wolfgan von Goethe, and Hegel in Germany, and N.I. Gnedich, V.A. Zhukovsky and Alexander Pushkin in Russia.)  

 At the same time, however, not one of them doubted that nonetheless there had been a Trojan War.

      The archaeological digs performed later, in particular by Heinrich Schliemann literally according to Homer's poems, also somehow showed that the Trojans at sometime had been beaten with the Achaeans there in particular where the "Iliad" indicated.    Contemporary commentators of the "Iliad" and the "Odyssey" are in full rapture from Schliemann:   "The sensational discoveries of G. Schliemann in 1870 - 80 have shown that Troy, Mycenae and the Achaean strongholds are not myths, but reality.

  .  The consistencies of a number of his finds in the fourth tunneled tomb in Mycenae with Homer's accounts have amazed Schliemann's contemporaries.  The impression was so strong that Homer's epoch for a long time began to be associated with the period of the flourishing of Achaean Greece in the 14^th - 13^th centuries B.C."  

   However, in other works devoted to the Trojan War, the traditional historians just as joyfully write: "Like Columbus, he opened up a world more astonishing that that which he had searched.  These riches were many centuries older than Priam and Hecuba; these graves were not the tombs of the Atrides, but ruins of an Aegean civilization in continental Greece, just as ancient as the Minoan epoch of Crete.  While not suspecting it himself, Schliemann confirmed the truth of Horace's famous line: vixerunt fortes ante Agamemnona - "Brave men were living before Agamemnon."  

      So, finally, did Heinrich Schliemann discover Troy or something else?  No one knows. Indignation bursts from archaeologists when they recall Heinrich Schliemann. They write that he was a self-taught person, had digs while not observing any rules and destroyed beyond hope whole cultural groups at the site of an ancient settlement, which arbitrarily was called Troy by him. That is how the discoverer turned out.

     As regards the Trojan War itself, then it turns out there is evidence of its immediate participants. That is, there was. And these participants are called Dictis and Dares Phrygius. Only they didn't live in great antiquity, but in the Middle Ages and wrote not in Greek, but in the Latin language. At that, their "dry and monotonous account of the facts of the siege" was thought of more highly in those times than "Homer's incredible poem." In particular, not just anybody writes in such expressions but the traditional historians themselves.

   The journals of Dictis and Dares gave birth in medieval Europe to a multitude of works which are combined today under the title of the "Trojan Cycle."  And their fame eclipsed the fame of Homer until the 17^th century itself:  "Dares Phrygius became one of the most well-known writers of antiquity."    

      But, perhaps, Dictis and Dares also were invented?  Nothing like it. Both of them are mentioned in Homer's poems. If one recalls that the text of "Iliad" and "Odyssey" appeared for the first time only in the 14th century, then everything falls into place. They really existed and really wrote their journals long before the author or authors of the poems which afterwards mentioned them in their own compositions.  

     There is an interesting fact in the history of the Middle Ages: supposedly in the 8th - 9^th centuries A.D. at the court of Charlemagne there lived the famous poet Englebert.  And he bore the name of Homer! Would he one way or the other give his own name to the Greek variant of the description of the Trojan War?

      However, we won't persist in this, because there is one more fact worthy of mentioning. The 19^th century German historian Ferdinand Gregorovius in the thorough monograph, "A History of the City of Athens in the Middle Ages," gives a detailed alphabetized index of the names of rulers, heroes and warriors. Among them is also the family Saint Homer, that is St. Homer, who played a noticeable role in the history of Italy and Greece in the 13^th Century A.D. Representatives of this family were participants of the "Trojan" war of the 13^th century. It is fully assumable that someone of the representatives of this family - a remarkable poet of the 14th - 15th centuries - collected and wrote down the family legends of the family of Homers about this war in the form of the two grandiose epic poems.

   In any case, "Iliad" and "Odyssey" are belated works of art which were created in the Renaissance epoch as the poetic peak of all the "Trojan Cycle."  (Gleb Nosovskiy, Anatoliy Fomenko "Russia and Rome," Vol. 1)

   The Trojan War in "ancient" Greece is an imaginary reflection of the  Gothic War, which occurred in the early Middle Ages. A detailed comparison of the two wars shows their coincidence even in trifles. We shall cite some of the results of the research described in the book "Russia and Rome."   

      The Trojan kingdom knows seven kings who ruled in sequence.   The first is the founder of the city and all the state.  The fall of Troy and the death of the kingdom occurs with the seventh king.

    The Roman Empire, described by Livy, also has seven emperors who ruled in sequence. The first is the founder of the city and the state.  Rome comes to an end and is turned into a republic during the seventh empire.

     Both wars last almost equally:  the first - 10, the second - 12 years.  

     The Trojan kingdom was destroyed twice. And these collapses are the only ones in its history.  

       In the history of the Roman Empire (according to Livy) and its duplicate - Roman Empire III (in the West), there also were two collapses. The second and final is the Gothic War. These two collapses are also the same in the history of Roman Empire III.   

     The two newcomer-strangers Jason and Hercules destroyed the first Trojan kingdom.  "Newcomers from the West. . . captured the city" ("Trojan Legends")

     The two newcomer-strangers Odoacer and Theodoric destroyed the "purely Roman" Empire (First Empire), having invaded from the northwest.

  After the first destruction, the Trojan empire, in essence also becomes Trojan:  earlier it had been called the Dardan Settlement.

  After the first collapse, the Roman Empire in the West changes its name. It is turned into an Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy. A Tarquin-ruled dynasty.

     The Trojan name arose from the name of the new king, Troil, who "built more than others in the city and gave it his own name - Troy."  

    A new name appears at the end of the Roman Empire II - the Emperor Trajan.