The Trap of False History

Constantine III or Constantine VII?

An ivory plaque representing Christ crowning Constantine VII (ca. 945)

Christ crowning Constantine VII (ca. 945)

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.”

During the course of their conquests in Egypt the Persians became acquainted with the Quran and with it also with Islam and thus moving westwards they took them both with them to Spain. At this point it might not be a waste if we take a little detour and examine in more detail the circumstances of the birth of Islam, even more so, since during the course of our research we will also get an answer to the question why it is exactly 297 years that were inserted into our history.

, 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>

*
*

  • The noble man is one who dominates himself; the holy man is one who transcends himself. Nobility and holiness are the human imperatives of the human state.

    - Frithjof Schuon