The Trap of False History

The mighty sultan Miramammona


We have seen, that Uwe Topper came to the controversial conclusion that Islam had begun several centuries earlier than previously thought and was present already in the 4th century BC. But Topper goes even further: according to him the also Arab conquest of the Iberian peninsula took place much earlier. On page 138 in his book he writes that instead of in 711 the Muslims appeared in Hispania probably already in 414. On this point it might be worth checking what our national chronicles have to say, since both the Chronicon Pictum and the chronicle of Simon Kézai reports on a highly interesting event. I quote the Chronicon Pictum:

“Departing from here, [Attila] marched down the Rhône to Catalaunum1, where he divided his army of which he sent one third under selected captains against the mighty sultan Miramammona; upon receiving this news he fled the city of Sevilla from the Huns and traversing the so-called straits of Sevilla escaped to Morocco.” (page 12)

In one of the editions of the Chronicon Pictum the original text is appended with an explanatory footnote. At this point the following footnote is made:

“The mentioning of Morocco is a completely nonsensical invention, since at this time the Moors or Arabs could not have entered Europe.”

Now, according to official chronology this is indeed true. However, if the theory of Uwe Topper proves to be correct and if the conquest of the Iberian peninsula by the Arabs really took place 297 years earlier, then it is easily conceivable that at the time of Attila the Moorish encampments in Hispania were already bustling with activity! The falsification of history in the West displaced the birth of Islam to a date three hundred years later and with it also the Arab conquest of the Spanish peninsula, while leaving Attila in the 5th century AD. Due to considerations of chronology no serious historian has thus far been able to state such claims without the risk of being ridiculed, as that Attila the Hun would have stopped the Moors, although both our medieval chronicles (the Chronicon Pictum as well as the chronicle of Simon Kézai) make unequivocal references in support for such a claim. The Arab expansion in Hispania was thus chronologically disconnected from the time of Attila and the Western chroniclers immediately used this to their advantage. They invented a new fictitious Western ruler by the name of Charles Martell and wrote that it was he who stopped the advance of the Arabs, after having procured a great victory over the armies of Abd-el Rahman at the battle of Poitiers in 733. And this Charles Martell is none other than the grandfather of Charlemagne, of whom it is becoming more and more clear, thanks to Illig’s theory, he really never existed.

With the new conclusions reached by Topper the timeline that was previously turned on its head is suddenly in one fell swoop corrected and everything falls into place. It becomes clear that our medieval chronicles are proven reliable in this regard and are not mistaken, when they connect the checking of the Arabs to the West European military campaigns of Attila. If we subtract 297 years from the date of 733 of the battle of Poitiers then we really end up back in the beginning of the 400’s, that is, exactly in the era of Attila. Topper also calls to attention – among other things – the fact that when the date of the birth of Jesus Christ was determined in the Middle Ages an error was made of 7 years. At first, individual events were adjusted to this incorrectly calculated starting point and fixed to their dates the corresponding 7 year error. Later however, when this error was discovered, they corrected the previously determined dates by adding to them 7 years. Since correction of a number of previously determined dates was unsuccessful, we find corrected and uncorrected dates mixed with each other within the problematical time period. As an example Topper mentions the Great Synod of 318, which is at a time distance of exactly 7 years from the council held in 325:

“… maybe the year 318 is an invention too, in which the Great Synod allegedly condemned Arius. And how come he had to be excluded twice from the Church? The two synods are crucially separated by 7 years. Could the first synod be the first one dated and the second be the same event but corrected from the displaced date of birth of Christ by the mentioned 7 years?”

If we treat the date of the Charles Martell victory at Poitiers, 733, as one of these uncorrected dates and if we add to it the 7 years by which the birth year of Jesus Christ was adjusted, then the resultant date we get is 740. According to official historiography the West European military campaign of Attila took place two years before his death, that is, in 451. If we treat the claim of the Chronicon Pictum as reliable, however, according to which Attila died in 445, then the West European campaign consequently ends up in the year 443. And lo and behold: between the date (740) of Charles Martell’s victory at Poitiers – corrected by the 7 years – and the date (445) of Attila’s West European campaign as given by the Chronicon Pictum is a difference of exactly 297 years! So it seems, then, that we need to erase both Charles Martell and his grandchild Charlemagne from the history books! (Perhaps it is not a coincidence they are both named Charles. It seems the coins stamped with the “Carolus” name were used also by Charles Martell.)

Shortly after Attila sent one third of his army against sultan Miramammona, Aëtius’ forces attacked the Huns. This what Kézai writes about it:

“… under the leadership of chosen captains he sent one third of his forces against the sultan of Morocco, Miramammona. Upon hearing this Miramammona fled the city of Sevilla and by traversing the strait of Sevilla to Morocco escaped the Huns. Meanwhile however Ethele2 was suddenly attacked by the Roman patrician named Aëtius together with ten Western kings. And when Ethele hearing this asked them, via his envoys, for a truce, so that he may join with that large part of his people that was absent, they did not agree and thus on the field of Belvider the battle between the two armies raged from morning until night. There was between the two armies a brook, so very small, that had anyone thrown a piece of hair into it, the quiet flowing of the water might almost have been stopped; this brook became so large due to the blood of men and animals from the battle that coaches together with their drivers and armed men were swept away, and this flood caused many casualties, indeed. This battle then, that took place between the Huns and the Western king on the aforementioned location, as told by the ancients, was greater than all the battles of the world fought in one place and in one day. In this battle the king of the Goths, Aldarikh falls miserably; when the other kings hear of his death they take flight. From this day forth the soul of the Huns and king Ethele was exalted, and fear gripped all the earth, and upon hearing the news several countries served them by paying taxes.”

According to official historiography the Westerners gave Attila a good thrashing at Catalaunum. It is very strange, that according to the record it was indeed after the battle that Attila’s soul “was exalted”, and the fear of the Huns gripped all the earth to such a degree, that “upon hearing the news several countries served them by paying taxes”! What is actually the case here, then? Who actually lost the battle of Catalaunum? In any case, László Götz writes the following in his work “Keleten kél a Nap”3:

“The alleged Roman victory at Catalaunum is in all probability a lie. After a lost war it would have been impossible for Attila to be in Italy – in the heart of the empire – in the Spring of the following year. But there is independent evidence for this claim: by analysing the text of the record of the battle it has been shown that Jordanes copied almost word for word Herodotos’ historical record of another battle, namely the battle of Salamis.”

  1. Here is a slight problem that has to my knowledge not yet been addressed: the location of the battle of Catalaunum is identified with Châlons-en-Champagne on the northeastern bank of the river Marne, just southeast of Reims in northern France. Yet according to the Chronicon Pictum, “Attila marches down the Rhône to Catalaunum.” The river Rhône is in the south of France! Not only is it in the south of France, Attila is marching down it, meaning he is not even marching northwards, towards the alleged location of the battle. Being in the south of France makes more sense if he was planning to send an army against the Arabs in Spain. Just to get an idea, if we measure the distance between one of the most northerly cities on the Rhône, Lyon and Châlons-en-Champagne it is roughly 450 km. That is quite a distance to march with an army in an instant! But does not the name Catalaunum remind us of Catalonia in the northeastern edge of Spain? It was originally spelled Catalaunia. Would it not be more likely that, marching down the river Rhône towards Catalaunum, Attila was actually heading for Catalonia? Apparently, the historians are not as sure about the true location of the Catalaunian Fields as they pretend to be. Further research on this problem is needed. []
  2. See footnote 5 on page 1. []
  3. See footnote 6 on page 1. []
, 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>


  • Within a nominally Christian world, chivalry upheld without any substantial alterations an Aryan ethics in the following things: (1) upholding the ideal of the hero rather than of the saint, and of the conqueror rather than of the martyr; (2) regarding faithfulness and honor, rather than caritas and humbleness, as the highest virtues; (3) regarding cowardice and dishonor, rather than sin, as the worst possible evil; (4) ignoring or hardly putting into practice the evangelical precepts of not opposing evil and not retaliating against offenses, but rather, methodically punishing unfairness and evil; (5) excluding from its ranks those who followed the Christian precept ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’ to the letter; and (6) refusing to love one’s enemy and instead fighting him and being magnanimous only after defeating him.

    - Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, p. 298-99.