by
Damien
F. Mackey
“Very
strange it is that the author of the Chronicon
Pictum manages to find the Byzantine emperor at the time of the Magyar
reconquest to be an emperor living in the 600’s!”
Gyula Tóth
That ‘something is rotten in the state of’ aspects of the text book AD history
is apparent, I think, from what I wrote in my article:
Judith the Simeonite and
Judith the Semienite
according to which the famed Jewish heroine, Judith, of c. 700 BC (conventional
dating), has been strangely projected into a (artificial, I believe) c. 900 AD
scenario, as Judith (or Gudit), complete with some Judith-like named ancestors.
The kingdom of Axum, I have concluded, appears to have been substituted
for the ancient kingdom of Assyria (both in the case of Gudit and that of
Mohammed).
Now Gyula Tóth, writing with reference to German historical
conspiracy theorist, Heribert Illig and his Phantom Time Hypothesis, tells of apparent duplications of AD’s C10th and C7th”: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/nice-things-to-say-about-attila-the-hun-87559701/
The Trap of False History
The Dark Pages of the Middle Ages
Illig also reports on the conspicuous similarities
between the Byzantine state of affairs of the 7th and the 10th centuries.
“Around the year 600 AD the advancing Avars weaken
the imperial realm militarily on the Balkan peninsula”, he writes.
Let us not forget: with the correction of the 300
years the time of the advancement of the Avars coincides with the advancement
of the Magyars. Since Byzantium will need to involve itself in another conflict
with yet another strong northern enemy, this time in the beginning of the 900’s
and the Magyars, there is a strong suspicion that the entire Avar era is
nothing but a chronologically predated duplicate of the Magyar reconquest.
Illig refers to Manfred Zeller, who in his work about the steppe peoples points
out: “the number of these horse peoples doubles in the 1st millennium, filling up
the empty centuries!” Hence the Avars are simply just a duplicate. They are
nothing other than a nation created from one of the adjectives used to describe
the Hun-Magyars and its only purpose was to fill out the empty centuries. The
rich archaeological finds admired under the Avar name might as well be the
legacy of the Huns of Attila.
But let us return to Byzantium: in 602 a
frightening and talentless figure sits on the Byzantine throne in the person of
Phokas, who can only come to power by regicide. Husrau II, the Persian king
takes advantage of the favouring moment and attacks Byzantium, allegedly to
avenge the death of the emperor. Although in 610 Heracleitos topples the terror
reign of Phokas, the relentless advance of the Persians continues: they conquer
East Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and via the shores of North
Africa march all the way to Tripoli. The taking of Jerusalem and the capture of
the Holy Cross takes place on May 22, 614 AD, after three weeks of siege. It is
interesting to note, that Heracleitos has a co-ruler, his own son, who is
crowned already at two years of age, but who lives in the shadow of his father
for a long time without any real executive powers. When he finally and
belatedly comes to genuine power, suddenly his wasting existence ends. The
person in question is none other than Constantine III. On top of it all, this
is the very same Constantine III also mentioned in the Chronicon Pictum in
connection with the dating of the Magyar reconquest:
“…
hundred and four years after the death of the Hungarian king Attila, in the
time of emperor Constantinus III and pope Zachary – as it is written in the
chronicles of the Romans – the Magyars emerged a second time out of Scythia…”
Very strange it is that the author of the Chronicon
Pictum manages to find the Byzantine emperor at the time of the Magyar
reconquest to be an emperor living in the 600’s!
As we know, according to the theory of Illig the
fictitious centuries start the year 614, that is, not long after the capturing
of the Holy Cross. Constantine III is already crowned co-ruler, yet he is only
three years old. The time when he comes to genuine power, actually already
takes place in the phantom era. If Illig’s theory is correct, then Constantine
III has to appear in some form also in the 10th century. And lo and behold, the
miracle of miracles, in the 10th century we again meet a Constantine – true,
this time not III but VII! Indeed, it is the very Constantine VII
Porphyrogenitus who in all likelihood was one of the creators of the fictitious
centuries. After all this, Illig starts to examine the 10th century life
history of Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus. The story begins somewhere at the
start of the 10th century, when pope Leo is widowed three times within four years,
before Zoe gives birth to an illegitimate son. After crowning this boy co-ruler
the year before, Leo dies in 912. (It is worthwhile to point out that according
to the theory of Illig history starts again in 911, therefore, at the time of
the crowning of his illegitimate son in 912, we are again witnessing genuine
history take its course!) This boy rises to real power very late, 24 years
after his coronation, meaning that up until then others were managing the
affairs of the realm, which obviously must have stung in the eyes of the young
emperor. In this regard he resembled very much Constantine III, who also got
his hands on the governmental reins rather late, and who also was crowned
co-ruler by his daddy, the emperor. At this point who do you think was the
illegitimate son of emperor Leo of the 10th century? Indeed, none other than
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus himself! So there is a conspicuous similarity
between the lives of the Constantine (III) of the 7th century and the
Constantine (VII) of the 10th century. It is interesting to note, that
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus gives the credit for repossessing the Holy
Cross from the Persians not coincidentally to Heracleitos, since by this act he
honoured his own (7th century) father, paying homage to his memory. Due to the
fact that Heracleitos, by being the father of Constantine III of the 7th
century, was in fact also the father of Constantine VII of the 10th century! On
top of it all, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus manages things in such a way, that
the genuine history more or less starts again from the time of his own
coronation!
But not only do the persons of the two Constantines
show conspicuous similarities, but also the foreign political affairs of 7th
century and 10th century Byzantium. In the 7th century, as I have already
mentioned, the Avar advance from the north was afflicting the empire, while the
Persian conquests in the east were multiplying the worries of “Constantines” of
all ages. In the 10th century it is as if history would repeat itself: from the
north the Magyars are disturbing the peace of the empire, while from the
southeast the Arab advance is doing the same. This is the point at which a
feeling of apprehension starts to boil up inside: is it not possible, that
looking at the Avars of the 7th century we actually see the 10th century
Magyars? And is it not possible, that the advance of the 10th century Arabs in
actual fact is identical with the 7th century Persian advance? If the Byzantine
empire in the 7th century had to face the opposition of the Persians and Avars,
then these peoples turn into Magyars and Arabs in the 10th century! In
connection with the Arab-Persian problem Illig writes the following:
“A
certain mystery of art history becomes clear, which asks why there are to be
found many more Persian-Syrian than Arab elements in Spain. (…) We no longer
have to wonder how a small number of Arabs from oases could succeed in
attacking all nations of their time from Spain to the Indus river with such
favourable results; this is more to be expected from the Persian armies.”
