| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
 |
|
| Mick Harper wrote: | | When it comes to Dark Ages, always remember the AE Rule: if there's nothing there, it may not exist. |
Of course the corollary to this is.... that history stops when not much happens, if everything is pootling along ok why bother recording it? 746 was very much like 745, the king's chilblains worsened....Golden ages occur in the future or are forgotten about. Dark ages serve as warnings and are lengthened.....
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
|
I might remind you that the king's chilbains are rather important if he is a sole and therefore a capricious ruler. But a good point about Dark Ages. It should be remembered though that the Greeks knew nothing about their Dark Age, that was an artefact created by modern historians, but everyone from Gildas onwards was only too aware of the European ones. Or so the copies said.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Pal Svensson sends us an interesting article https://cosmosmagazine.com/archaeology/ancient-history-deciphering-the-roman-red-dust
Of course red ochre is found in various really old sites eg the Red Lady of Pavilland, the tartan mummies of Central Asia and sites in Newfoundland. This might point to it as a preservative (possibly unintended) acting against bacterial decay. The use of it for the careening of ships is very important -- as we all know, the British Empire was built on copper bottoms. Maybe the Athenian Empire was built on barnacle free triremes. In trade and war, marginal competitive advantage wins the day.
From our own point of view, scientific analysis -- where and when -- might work wonders in all sorts of ways eg for pigment analysis in manuscripts.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
I think (Heinson doesn't do clarity) that Gunnar is saying they are contemporary, not the same person.
BTW Augustus (Wiley doesn't do detail) is a Sun cult not a person. So this doesn't seem strange to me.
Gibbon gives a clue. ....Augustus unifies military, civil and religious power, as emperor. Then, err, there are the Golden Years of which we know nothing. So Gibbon has, err, nothing really to tell. Then there is the succession (real origin according to Wiles)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Of course Gunnar is obsessed by conventional chronology +- 300 years.
I don't get why he wants to save the existing paradigm.
I suppose everyone needs something to hang their theories on.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Let's take a look.
Gunnar has done the spade work. Keep in mind that 4th century (conventional chronology, i.e. the one you uncritically adopt, even if you wish to revise it by the odd 300 years) emperors all worshipped Sol Invictus.
Coins celebrated Sol Invictus (sun/son) and Isis.
Isis?
Yes Isis...........
Who most of us think as an Egyptian Goddess. Isis has numerous connections to the christian Mary.
Isis had a son named Horus. Mary had a son named Jesus.
Isis and Mary are depicted in art as holding their special infant
Isis and Mary have primary roles in their respective religions as the eternal mother.
However........ Isis and Mary are both known as Lady of Light. Their infants bring light to the world.
And
Isis has a solar disk of light over her head and Mary has a halo of light above her head.
Halo = A sun/moon disc over the head.
The emperor most associated with sun worship conventionally is Elagabalus also known as Heliogabalus (Latin: Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus; c. 204 – 11 March 222).
The 4th century Roman Emperor Julian made Helios (sic) his central divinity.
Halo/Helios
The images on the coins that feature Sol Invictus/Isis are conveying circular notions of time based around Sun out of Darkness worship.
Historians are using these same coins to evidence (rewrite) a linear still evolving christian chronology (based on non contemporary sources) these sources were wanting to suppress belief in sun worship.
Diocletian Heliogabalus both get a rotten press.
The Augustus story is rewritten as Jesus.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Highly inspirational save for one point
| Diocletian Heliogabalus both get a rotten press. |
Elagabalus (I didn't know about the Helio- bit) certainly does. He brings to an end the Golden Age in a quite extraordinary way. A sort of mixture of Caligula and Nero but more permanent. But Diocletian doesn't. He gets a bit of routine savaging for Christian persecution but generally he's admired as the saviour of the empire. That's my reading anyway. Or maybe my memory.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Gibbon reckoned Diocletian got a bad press.
The fact that the Diocletian or Great Persecution, the so called most severe persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire, is now by historians downgraded is telling Wiley something.
It is a bit inconsistent to take only what you like from contemporary historiography, but heyho, when you want to get things off the ground.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
| Q Mag wrote: | | The purpose of the Roman empire’s subdivision by Diocletian and his tetrarchy was to permanently end the civil wars that had been raging since 88 BC (Marius [died 86 BC] against Sulla [died 78 BC]). This transformation from a more central to a more decentralized administration did not take place 300 years after these massive internal conflicts, but during the time that Augustus was still emperor. Diocletian did not organize decentralization to weaken Rome, but to protect the capital. Diocletian was not an imitator of Augustus's reforms. He was directly responsible for their implementation. |
Diocetian split the empire East and West. Each area had an older Augustus as monarch with a younger Caesar being groomed to succeed.
Orthodoxy notice the continuity. Wiley notices the circularity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Let's take a refresh. This is what Gunnar is doing.
He is taking on board the modern convention of translating all other dating systems into a single linear CE chronology and pointing out anomalies that exist when you look at the actual stratigraphy of archaeological sites. He is then proposing a new timeline for CE.
The CE chronology is based on the calculations of Dennis the Dwarf/Humble (Dionysius Exiguus) who invented a new system of numbering years. Dionysius wanted to replace the use of Diocletian years so that people would not remember a tyrant.
This is what proponents of CE are doing, they are covering up the origin of a chronology which was invented (so they say) to stop people thinking about Diocletian and celebrating Christ.
What did Diocletian do to upset folks?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Diocletian was born Diocles.
| wiki wrote: | | Diocletian was born near Salona in Dalmatia (Solin in modern Croatia), some time around 244.[3] His parents gave him the Greek name Diocles, or possibly Diocles Valerius.[7] The modern historian Timothy Barnes takes his official birthday, 22 December, as his actual birthdate. Other historians are not so certain.[8] His parents were of low status; Eutropius records "that he is said by most writers to have been the son of a scribe, but by some to have been a freedman of a senator called Anulinus." The first forty years of his life are mostly obscure.[9] The Byzantine chronicler Joannes Zonaras states that he was Dux Moesiae,[10] a commander of forces on the lower Danube.[11] The often-unreliable Historia Augusta states that he served in Gaul, but this account is not corroborated by other sources and is ignored by modern historians of the period.[12] The first time Diocletian's whereabouts are accurately established, in 282, the Emperor Carus made him commander of the Protectores domestici, the elite cavalry force directly attached to the Imperial household – a post that earned him the honour of a consulship in 283.[13] As such, he took part in Carus' subsequent Persian campaign. |
The first 40 years of his life are obscure. The origin of his name is, according to ortho, obscure.
Wiley has discovered what he was up to. he can fill those missing 40 years
He was the charioteer Diocles, the most famous and well paid sports star of all time, who retired at the age of 42.
Let's take a look He most commonly raced four-horse chariots and in most of his races he came from behind to win. Diocles is also notable for owning an extremely rare ducenarius, a horse that had won at least 200 races. Records show that he won 1,462 out of the 4,257 four-horse races he competed in and was placed in an additional 1,438 races (mostly finishing in second place). The ‘champion of charioteers’ is one of the best-documented ancient athletes, most likely because he was such a star at the famous Roman Circus Maximus.[2] Being the best in the field also seems to have allowed Diocles to perfect his showmanship. Many of his victories took the form of a ‘come from behind’ crossing of the finish line at the last possible moment. The crowds loved it. Any race with Diocles quickly became the ‘featured event’ of the day. This naturally helped Diocles make even more money.
He had an unusually long career for a charioter, racing for 24 years and represented three of the four most famous chariot racing stables (factiones) in Rome, which were known by the racing colors worn by their charioteers (Reds, Whites, Blues, and Greens). He began driving for the Whites at the age of 18; after 6 years, he switched to the Greens for 3 years, and then drove 15 years for the Reds before retiring at the age of 42.[3]
Winnings
His winnings reportedly totalled 35,863,120 sesterces, equivalent to 358,631.20 gold aureus or 26,000 kg of gold, allegedly over $15 billion in today's (2011) dollars based on a calculation equating the budgets of the Roman army and the United States army. This amount could provide a year's supply of grain to the entire city of Rome, or pay the Roman army at its height for a fifth of a year. Classics professor Peter Struck describes him as "the best paid athlete of all time".[4] In equivalent basic good purchasing power, Diocles's wealth would be between approximately $60 million and $160 million. |
You think that is another Diocles? Explain the 40 years, without use of your conventional Christian chronology. Wiley is willing to listen
Wiley thinks Diocletian has had a rough press. He has lost his golden years as Diocles star of Circus maximus. Still Nero was branded a cheat for his Olympic performances. Every cloud.....
BTW Diocletian's big currency reform was the introduction of the solidus
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidus_(coin)
Ortho now thinks this is because the coins were solid !
sol/deus... the coins are gold.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mick Harper
Site Admin
In: London
|
|
|
|
Magnificent! I'm not buying into it (it isn't one of mine) but I don't mind helping out
| Elagabalus soon devalued the Roman currency. He decreased the silver purity of the denarius from 58% to 46.5% — the actual silver weight dropping from 1.82 grams to 1.41 grams. He also demonetized the antoninianus during this period in Rome. |
Never popular, these sorts of things. But was he happy on the home front?
| According to Cassius Dio, his most stable relationship seems to have been with his chariot driver, a blond slave from Caria named Hierocles, whom he referred to as his husband |
Or possibly his co-ruler, successor, whatever
| Elagabalus tried to have his presumed lover, the charioteer Hierocles, declared Caesar |
And, Wiley, if you want to turn this into a book, you'll get a great write-up in the Guardian Review
| He was described as having been "delighted to be called the mistress, the wife, the queen of Hierocles" and was reported to have offered vast sums of money to any physician who could equip him with female genitalia. Elagabalus has been characterized by some modern writers as transgender or transsexual. | |
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wile E. Coyote
In: Arizona
|
|
|
|
Coin works from coins.
The Charioteer has been replaced by a stone. It is believed to be the stone of Emesa a huge black conical stone (meteorite?) which so the legend says was paraded around Rome. The inscription Sanct Deo Soli Elagabal. (hero/saint of the sun god?)
The Romans transported obelisks to Rome and located them at strategic points around the city.
There were two obelisks located on the spina of the Circus Maximus
The Flaminio Obelisk | was built during the kingdom of Pharaohs Ramesses II and Merneptah (13th century BC) and placed in the Temple of Sun in Heliopolis; it was brought to Rome in 10 BC by command of Augustus, together with the Obelisk of Montecitorio, and placed on the spina of the Circus Maximus, followed three centuries later by the Lateran Obelisk. |
Circles Chariots Obelisks. = Sun God.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
