The Trap of False History

Alexandrian dates in Kézai’s chronicle

We have seen, that Márk Kálti dated the Magyar reconquest to the year 677 after the birth of Christ. However, from his logic we can derive another date for the reconquest! If we add to 445 AD – which is the date of death of Attila according to the Chronicon Pictum – the 104 years that according to him passed between the death of Attila and the second entry into the Carpathian Basin of the Magyars, the result we get is the year 549 AD. (445 + 104 = 549) Simon Kézai in his chronicle written 1272 dates the reconquest of the Magyars much later, namely to 872 AD. This begs the question: is there any connection between these two dates? Well, these two dates are in actual fact one and the same, only one (549) is to be understood as years passed since the birth of Christ, while the other (872) is to be understood as years passed since the death of Alexander the Great! Alexander the Great died in 323 BC and we know that a chronology commenced starting the year of his death. Hence, if someone living in the Middle Ages was thinking in terms of number of years passed since the death of Alexander the Great, then he would use dates exactly 323 years greater than those who already were counting time according to the birth of Christ! To summarise:

445 – Attila dies this year according to Chronicon Pictum.
104 – number of years passing between the death of Attila and the Magyar reconquest according to Chronicon Pictum.
323 – the number of years differing between the chronology that measures time from the death of Alexander the Great and the Christian chronology.
872 (445 + 104 + 323) – according to Kézai this is the date of the Magyar reconquest!!!

It is easily conceivable that in the Middle Ages they knowingly or unknowingly confused these two chronologies running parallel to each other! They still knew the correct number of years but whether this number was to be counted from the birth of Christ or the death of Alexander the Great had become unclear. With the spread of Christianity also Christian chronology became commonplace but in such a way that the old Alexandrian dates remained but were henceforth understood as Christian dates. Illig also mentions this possibility. In his book on page 4221, in the chapter called “From Alexander to Alexander” he writes:

“In the dialogue between myself and Gunnar Heinsohn he suggests that the proposed three centuries of made-up medieval history got into the chronology due to the Alexandrian dates being read as dates related to Christ. (…) The logic behind this was that due to reasons of divine grace the references to the the pagan Alexander the Great were no longer accepted and therefore the old dates were simply reinterpreted as “Christian dates”. (…) In this case the more correct date, namely the the Alexandrian date according to Byzantine beaurocracy would have been conferred on the West, which would have then become changed there into a Christian date.”

Illig writes all this without the slightest knowledge of the fact that we Magyars have two medieval chronicles which, concerning the dating of the reconquest, produce exactly the 323 years of difference between the chronology counted from the death of Alexander and the one counted from the birth of Christ. As we have seen the Hungarian chronicles in this respect too marvellously support the theories of Illig.

However, a question arises: if Kálti proclaims that Attila died in 445 and that the reconquest took place 104 years later then why does he state the date of 677 instead of 549? Is this not a contradiction? Well yes, this certainly is a contradiction! However, the cause of this contradiction lies in the very logic of the calendar forgery. Illig expounded clearly, that the appearance of the fictitious three hundred years in the timeline does not mean that none of the events falling between the years 614 and 911 are true. Rather, it is much more a case of fleshing out the outer regions of the fictitious period in question with predated and postdated events, as well as multiples of rulers provided with regnal (ordinal) numbers. Thus Kálti mentions also the year of 677, because he is not only aware of when Attila died and how many years after this the Magyars entered the Carpathian Basin, but also who was at that time the currently reigning Byzantine emperor. In other words Kálti writes 677 instead of 549 because he wants to synchronise his chronicle to the time of the falsified reign of Constantine III! This was the Constantine III out of which, during the course of time, was fashioned a Constantine IV, V, VI as well as a VII, too. According to the final official version in the year 677 a Constantine provided with the regnal number IV happened to be reigning. Therefore Márk Kálti ends up contradicting himself because he wants to synchronise his data with the false Western chronicles! Luckily though, he also states correctly the dates from pure Hungarian sources.

We have here then such a Hungarian chronicle legacy, which with such stunning consistency reproduces the very difference of three centuries in question which Heribert Illig managed to shed light on based exclusively on Western European sources, and all without being at all aware of this Hungarian chronicle legacy! We should notice that this constitutes two completely different and from each other totally independent things which nevertheless match each other perfectly. On the one hand we have the Western European side of the matter which stands on its own, for Illig has been supporting his theories with arguments for years based exclusively on Western European sources. On the other hand is the Hungarian chronicle tradition which is totally independent from the Western European system of arguments and still completely supports it! Can we, are we allowed to overlook in its entity such great consistency? In any case, thus says the Word:

“At the mouth of two witnesses or three shall every word be established.”
(2 Corinthians 13.1)

  1. Hungarian edition []
, by Kartavirya This entry was posted in Metahistory. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback.

One Comment

  1. simone said:

    I would like to point out some weak points of this thesis.
    First, Islam was not started with the flight of the Prophet Muhammad (on whom be peace and benedictions) to Medina, but 13 years earlier in Mecca. This is well established in the history of Islam.
    Second, and this is well established as well, the reason for the Prophet’s flight (peace and blessings be upon him) was not fear of christian persecution, as indeed christian presence in Arabia was quite limited, although it existed, but rather the necessity to preserve Islam and its followers from the persecution of the polytheists in Mecca, who disbelieved the monotheism taught by Islam, as it also went against their economical interest: the Meccans gained much profit from the fact that their city was the centre of pilgrimage for all Arabia, and in its sacred precinct there were 360 idols, which were adored by the different Arab tribes. Go back to the One God preached by Abraham and Ismael (peace be upon them), and you will lose the money gained from the pilgrims.
    Third, the fact that Arianism and Islam share part of their beliefs, even if they are important tenets, does not necessarily indicate borrowings: similarities between religions can have two explanations: 1) borrowings and influence between cultures: this explains well the similarities, not so well the differences between religions;
    2) that these religions have a common source (God), so they share what is true in them, while their differences are because of men who have corrupted and altered the original teachings.
    They are both possible explanations, but I incline more to the second: it is stronger from my point of view, and this would entail that the Arian “heresy” is not a heresy at all, rather it is closer to a correct understanding of Jesus’ (peace be on him) teachings, confirmed by the later revelation of the Quran from God. There are studies pointing to this, based even on the Bible, and I suggest the book “Muhammad in the Bible” from Prof. Abdu ‘L-Ahad Dawud, former Bishop of Uramiah. It can be found on the web and downloaded.
    Fourth, the theory of the different ways of counting the years (Julian/Christian era) looks quite improbable (although not impossible) but it has two main limits:
    1) it adopts different counting systems according to what suits the theory of the 297 years gap. It should at least demonstrated, for this to be accepted, that the different sources used were actually following the counting attributed to each of them. It is obvious that a single source (for example any historical document from ancient times, like ancient Annals) would always use the same counting method UNLESS SPECIFIED OTHERWISE;
    2) it is not strong enough if it is not corroborated by numerous other proofs for the validity of the general theory “Islam comes from Arianism”.
    Lastly, the fact that the Patriarchs of the various cities opened their doors to the muslim invaders can have different explanations. Here I suggest a couple:
    1) the Patriarchs knew that under Islamic law christians are protected and can keep their freedom to worship in the Christian way, on condition of paying a certain tax (which is actually linked to the fact that they do not have to fight for the protection of the community, but rather are protected by the muslim army from foreign invaders). Therefore the Patriarch understood this was not like Roman persecution, and it was better for the christians to live and remain christians rather than to die (as this would not necessarily be martyrdom: they were not being persecuted for religious reasons, but rather were free to be christians). This would be attested by the words of the Patriarch of Antioch: ‘It is better if you submit and pay your levies to our lord, than to be killed or dragged into captivity!’
    2) many early converts to islam were Christians and Jews who saw in the Bible prophecies confirming the prophethood of Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him). In fact, it could be said that one of the firsts to know that Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) was a Prophet was a Christian monk called Bahira, who based his deduction on what he found in the Scriptures. This probably goes back to the book I mentioned earlier, “Muhammad in the Bible”. It is possible that the Patriarchs had the same conviction. There are muslim sources attesting that the Emperor Eraclius believed in Muhammad’s (peace and blessings be upon him) prophecy.
    I pray that God guide us all to what pleases Him the most, gives clarity to our minds and hearts and show us the Truth whatever it may be, making us gladly accept it. And may He forgive me for any wrong thing I said.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>


  • Rather than love, than money, than fame, give me truth.


    - Henry David Thoreau