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. Fatal error: Uncaught Error: Call to undefined function ereg() in /storage/content/06/227706/ Stack trace: #0 /storage/content/06/227706/ thematic_commenter_link() #1 /storage/content/06/227706/ cakra_comments(Object(WP_Comment), Array, 1) #2 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker_Comment->start_el('', Object(WP_Comment), 1, Array) #3 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker->display_element(Object(WP_Comment), Array, 1, 0, Array, '') #4 /storage/content/06/227706/ Walker_Comment->display_element(Object(WP_Comment), Arra in /storage/content/06/227706/ on line 262