The Trap of False History

No more lies!

When I suggested for the first time that there is exactly 323 years difference between the date of the reconquest according to Kézai’s chronicle, 872, and that of the Chronicon Pictum, 549, – that is, the exact time difference separating the Christian chronology and the chronology measured from the death of Alexander – I found myself facing reactions such as this: “If you take the statements of the Chronicon Pictum so seriously, then you should also find an answer to explain why Kálti writes such an absurdity that Attila lived a 124 years!” True! – I thought. It is rather unlikely, that a chieftain of over a 120 years of age would go into battle at Catalaunum, and would, after this and on top of it all, also see himself fit to marry!

The other point which is usually brought up against the reliability of the Chronicon Pictum is in connection with the emperor Honorius. You see, Márk Kálti writes that emperor Honorius was a Greek, that is, East Roman emperor! Upon hearing this our highly esteemed historian comrades start to roar with laughter, saying: Emperor Honorius was not East Roman, but West Roman emperor! And not even Dr. Klaus Weissgerber, who accepts the existence of the fictitious centuries, fails to note when writing about Kálti’s chronicle: “Honorius was indeed West Roman emperor and ruled between 395 and 423.” … Well yes! This certainly is a tremendous cardinal error. How could Mark Kálti be so mistaken? This is indeed an unforgivable negligence. Kálti even dresses it up: According to him Attila marries the daughter of this Greek (!) emperor named Honorius and from this marriage the legendary leader of the Székelys1 Csaba is born. Honorius is then none other than the maternal grandfather of Csaba, to whom he fled – in Greece (!) – from the civil war that broke out after the death of Attila. But let us read from the Chronicon Pictum itself:

“So the vanquished Csaba and his brothers – those brothers who being on the other side at the beginning of the conflict but who joined forces with Csaba – altogether sixty in number, fled, according to legend, along with fifteen thousand Huns to Honorius, the grandfather of Csaba. Although Greek emperor Honorius wanted to install him in Greece, he did not stay there but returned to Scythia, the seat of his ancestors, in order to remain there. Csaba stayed with Honorius in Greece for thirteen years and due to the dangerous and difficult journey his return to Scythia lasted another year. (…) the Székelys thought Csaba had fallen in Greece; that is why the people have a commonly used saying to this day: “You should return when Csaba returns from Greece.” Csaba was a legitimate son of Attila by the daughter of Greek emperor Honorius; his sons were named Edömén and Ed.”2

Following this we can start feeling ashamed immediately: … this is what we can expect from our uneducated Finn-Ugrian chroniclers. What do we want with our 124 year-old Attila and Kálti, who thinks the West Roman emperor is a Greek emperor! And this is not all! Honorius actually dies already in 423! How could Csaba have fled to Honorius after the death of his father, Attila, in 453 (!) when Honorius, by that time, had been dead for over 30 years?! On top of it all, Kálti writes that the death of Attila took place during the time of pop Gelasius I, who only became pope in 492!! … That does it! … That is the last straw! … The person who after all this still believes even one word of the Hungarian chronicles is undoubtedly an amateurish dilettante chasing an imaginary glory, the paragon of the spiritual underworld, who, for reasons of base vanity or material gain, is propagating his distorted theories of ancient history at variance the official version! … Therefore I now proclaim from down here to all the idle officials of science up in their ivory towers: it is time to get off your high horses, because it certainly seems highly probable, that the singular reason for all the absurdities of our chronicles is the calendar forgery of the Westerners!

Seeing these apparent absurdities of Kálti’s chronicle I was struck by a suspicion according to which Attila’s West European campaign and unfortunate death really did not take place in the middle of the 5th century, but almost half-a-century before this, in the beginning of the 5th century. More precisely: in the end of the first decade of the 5th century, that is, exactly during the reign of emperor Honorius. However, the last episodes of Attila’s life, like for example his West European campaign, was chronologically displaced to the later date of the middle of the 5th century. The question arises: how could they do this? How did they push the last period of Attila’s life from the end of the first decade of the 5th century to the middle of the 5th century? Now, to explain the cause of such half-a-century calendar displacements, the 44 year difference between the Julian Era dates and the Christian Era dates proves to be the best choice. But can such a surplus in the years of Attila’s reign be at all supported? Yes they can! We read the following in the Chronicon Pictum:

“Attila ruled for forty-four years, was commander for five years, he lived for a hundred-and-twenty-four years.”

I have a very strong suspicion that Attila was not king for forty-four years and the only need for this remark was that the time period of the first half of Attila’s life was still calculated according to the Christian Era chronology, while the second half was calculated according to the Julian Era. Between these two systems of chronology is – as we have seen – a difference of precisely 44 years. There appeared therefore an empty period of 44 years, which Kálti fills with – for want of something better – “kinging around”!3 This explains also the extremely great age reached by Attila and it was these 44 years that separated Csaba’s journey to Greece from the period of emperor Honorius’ reign.

But what could have been the initial reason for this process? Why was there a need to create a break of 44 additional years between the the first and the second half of Attila’s life? However unbelievable: the issue at stake is Hispania. What was needed was time. Time for what? We find the answer in Uwe Topper’s book, where, on page 198, he writes:

“Because the goal of the Spanish endeavour of forgery was this: the creation of a Christian prehistory, in order to justify the recovery of the Iberian territories.”

In other words, they wanted to create a Christian history in Hispania predating the Arab conquest of the same, which created the legal basis for the reconquering of the peninsula and the fight against the Moors. In order to manage this however, the Visigoths had to be marched into Hispania somehow, preferably before the arrival of the Arabs! But how can this be achieved if the Visigoths never ever set foot in Hispania? Well, they did not hesitate for long: no matter if Visigoths never set foot in Hispania, they were simply dragged there!

We have seen earlier, that the time difference of the date – corrected by 7 years – between the victory of Charles Martell at Poitiers and the Chronicon Pictum date for Attila’s West European campaign is exactly 297 years. As they created Charles Martell out of Attila, they created the Visigoths entering Hispania the exact same way. But out of whom were they created? Out of none other than the Huns of Attila; those Huns who were sent by him to Hispania against the sultan Miramammona. We know, that these Huns arrived too late for the battle at Catalaunum and out of fear for Attila they never returned to Pannonia. They remained in Spain and became the population of that country. Let us read Simon Kézai:

“On the Spanish campaign of the Huns.

The third troop which was sent against Miramammona, could not take part in the battle due to it being delayed, stayed among the Katalauns and eventually turned into inhabitants of Katalaunia. For the Huns alone, excluding the others of foreign nationalities, counted three-hundred-and-thirty-two-thousand and thirty-two. Of these Huns several in the army were made captains, who are called ‘spán’ in the tongue of the Huns and after them was later named the whole of Ispania, where they were previously named Katalauns.”

So we can see, that there is no question of a small military force here. 330 000 Hispanian Hun immigrants is indeed equivalent of a homeland conquest proper! So here we have this large number of Huns stranded and settled in Hispania. Somehow Goths need to be made out of these! How? … You’d better hold on now. According to official historiography Honorius was not East Roman, but West Roman emperor, during the reign of whom a usurper of the throne appeared, Constantinus by name. Thus a civil war erupted between Honorius and Constantinus. Let us follow the developments according to the Great Illustrated Encyclopaedia of World History:

“But by that time Sarus, a general of Goth blood, received word that he should strike down the rebel and bring his head to the feet of Honorius. (…) But Constantinus was not afraid; he entrusted the leadership to the Frankish Edobich and the British Gerontius and these worked zealously until they forced Sarus out of Gallia. Constantinus now planned to take possession of Spain, too. (…) Constantinus invested his son Constans, who previously had been a monk, with the rank of high commander and entrusted to him the thousands of Honorians – thus were some barbarian troops named who were under military command, in honour of Honorius – and he succeded in traversing [Spain]. (…) The territory fell into the custody of the Honorians and they hurried to quench their thirst for plunder. They did not bother guarding the mountain passes so in the Autumn of 409 barbarians broke into Spain and the territory was overrun.”

Let us note:

We are in 409, when “barbarian” hordes (presumably Goths?!) called HONORIANS (!!!) in honour of Honorius, break into Hispania and overrun the territory. With the correction of 44 years according to the Julian Era chronology the event corresponds almost precisely (with an altogether difference of 2 years) with the West European campaign of Attila, when the HUNS sent against Miramammona to Spain are stranded in the territory. And at this stage who cares anymore about such tiny contradictions as that these Honorians, defying their name, fight on the side of Constantinus himself, against the emperor Honorius! But – I ask – what if these Honorians did not receive their name form Honorius at all? What if these are, in actual fact, Huns? Perhaps they are the people of HUNOR, that is, HUNORIANS!

We have seen earlier, that the victory of Charles Martell over the Arabs in 732-733 in actual fact is analogous with Attila’s West European campaign and is its repetition, its altered duplication which the Westerners have made their own. We have seen that if we subtract the 297 years that Illig considers fictitious, from the date of the battle of Poitiers corrected by seven years, we end up in 443, that is, designated by the Chronicon Pictum to be the year of Attila’s West European campaign. If we however take the uncorrected date for the battle of Poitiers and subtract, not 297, but 323 years that is appropriate for the correction according to the Alexandrian chronology, then we arrive in the year 409 after Christ. (732 – 323 = 409) And surprise, surprise: the “Honorians”, named after Honorius, start pouring into Spain in the Autumn of this very year, 409!

It can be assumed, that the 330 000 Huns that settled in Hispania remembered for a long time that they were in fact Huns, the descendants of Hunor, the son of Nimrod. Therefore then, somehow, it had to be explained to them gently and carefully that they remember incorrectly! With devilish refinement it had to be communicated to them that they are really not Hunor’s descendants at all, but Goths named “Honorians” after the emperor Honorius! Do we now understand why the Greek emperor Honorius had to be made into a West Roman emperor? This is why! It would have been exceedingly difficult to explain why an army fighting in the Pyrenean mountains far away in the West was named after an East Roman emperor! This is far more believable of a West Roman emperor. So Honorius was made into a West Roman emperor and the stake was the creation of a Gothic history in Hispania predating the Arab conquest. The fact, however, that alongside Honorius appeared an even more Western emperor than he, namely Constantinus, the ruler of Hispania, Gallia and Britannia, is indicating that it was not entirely possible to completely cover up that Honorius really ruled in the East!

Sure, but what happens if one day these Huns in Hispania start to examine their history and find out that the West European campaign of Attila took place the exact same year they themselves crossed the Pyrenean Mountains and took possession of their current homeland? Then they will no longer believe they got their name after Honorius! So something needs to be done. For example, the West European campaign of Attila has to be moved in time, from the year 409 – utilising the Julian Era dating system – and push it to the middle of the 5th century. This is why we find Attila’s 44 years of “kinging around”4 in Kálti’s chronicle, this is why Attila’s life span is stretched to become 124 years and this is why the chronological connection between the flight of Csaba and the period of the reign of Honorius is broken. And that Attila would have sent an army against the Arabs simply has to be denied. But an even better idea is to displace in time the birth of Islam by 297 years and to write that the Arabs expelled by the Huns of Attila were actually checked by Charles Martell.

Thus we see how it is possible to manufacture even three different events out a single one, by dating them according to different chronological systems. The date of Attila’s West European campaign according to Christian chronology is 409. But the Julian Era correction already pushes it to the middle of the 5th century, while if using the Alexandrian dating it ends up in 732. Thus they become Honorians in 409, Huns in 451 and Charles Martell’s Franks in 732.

Let us observe, in light of the above, how other “absurdities” of our chronicles also receive new meaning: If Attila’s death really did not take place in the middle of the 5th century, but around 410, and at this time Csaba flees to his maternal grandfather in Greece, Honorius, then another statement of the Chronicon Pictum becomes clear:

“Csaba stayed with Honorius in Greece for thirteen years…”

And why did Csaba spent exactly thirteen years in Greece? Don’t we want to guess? … Because it is exactly thirteen years later, in 423, that Honorius dies. So Csaba leaves to join his people in Scythia only after his maternal grandfather Honorius’ death in 423. Right after the death of his imperial protector. We see the beautiful order in which the until now unintelligible and twisted data line up themselves. To achieve this there was need to learn the facts about the calendar forgery of the early Middle Ages.

[All footnotes are mine. Article translated by me./Kartavirya]

Original source (pdf)

  1. Szeklers, Szekels or Latin ‘Siculi’, one of the most ancient Hungarian ethnic groups()
  2. This needs the support of a comment from the original Hungarian text: “A legyőzött Chaba és testvérei, Atyla királynak azok a fiai, akik a másik oldalról őmelléje álltak át, szám szerint hatvanan, úgy mondják, tizenötezer hunnal nagybátyjához, Honoriushoz menekültek.” There is a note concerning ‘nagybátyjához’: “in chapter 19 it was his grandfather.”; as well as to ‘Honoriushoz’: “according to the chronicler he was East Roman emperor, but according to currently accepted historiography he was West Roman emperor.” Source: Képes Krónika, a Krónika magyar szövege, a Krónika latin szövege, Nemzeti Kincseinkért Egyesület 2003, a magyar szöveg Barsi János fordítása.()
  3. The word used in the original text is regnavit, which means ‘ruled’, devoid of any comical connotation, but the author of this article quotes another edition of the Chronicon Pictum, where it is translated with the old-fashioned Hungarian expression királykodott, which due to its flexibility can and is used by the author for comical effect and thus prompted me to translate it with the comical English “kinging around”.()
  4. See footnote 3.()
, 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>

*
*

  • We fashion wood for a house, but it is the emptiness inside that makes it livable. We work with the substantial, but the emptiness is what we use.

    - Tao Te Ching 11