# Real medieval history of England



## Gilda Scott (Nov 8, 2021)

Hi, everybody! While studying the history of England, I found strange coincidences, but I could not understand why they exist. It was not without the help of the team (my good friends) that I managed to make a theory about the real history of England. The Fomenko-Nosovsky theory was taken as a basis to create a more global theory of the revision of official history. But here I want to write about my English research.

In English history, you can meet "ancient phantoms" of personalities from the 14th-16th century.
Perhaps someone has already raised a similar topic, but I will touch on what I could not find on English-language forums.

*The Hundred Years' War or Britain's war with Rome?*

The events that began in Britain in 293 and the events that began in 1337 have a similar meaning. 
1. England, like the Celt's Britain, found themselves under the rule of foreign elites, who eventually dragged the region into protracted wars between the elites of one country.
2. *The Lancastrian war of the king from the branch of the usurpers* led to the fall of Paris, but then, to the heavy defeats of England on the continent. *The war of the Roman usurper Magnus Maximus of Britain* led to the fact that he gained control of Gaul, but lost the war to Valentinian.
3. The defeat of Magnus Maximus was connected with the betrayal of the commander of the Roman Franks *Flavius Merobaudes.* The defeat of the British was indirectly accompanied by the changeable policy of *the Burgundian dukes*.
4. The *English* were forced to fight the *Scots* during the Hundred Years War. The *Romano-Britons* endured constant *Pictish raids* through Hadrian's Wall during the British uprisings against Rome and the usurpers.
5. *Carausius* had a *lion* on the coins (?). *The Plantagenets* had *leopards* on the coat of arms. I am still studying this question, but the lion and the leopard have a similar meaning in heraldry.
6. The revolts of Britain led to the fact that the Romans left Britain and she entered the period of the dark ages. The Hundred Years' War led to the War of the Roses and the coming to power of the Tudors.
7. The events of the *Great Conspiracy* in Roman Britain are similar to the events of *Henry Percy's defeat* in 1372 in Scotland.
8. *Henry Percy* in 1377 *took revenge on the Scots for the burning of Roxborough*. He was appointed Lord-Warden of the Marches and had an impressive authority in the kingdom for three kings. In the end, he became a participant in the uprising against the royal power. *Theodosius the Elder*, a Roman military commander, suppressed an uprising in Britain and* took revenge on the Picts for plundering the region* in 368, as a result of palace intrigues and the death of Emperor Valentinian, he was arrested.

Coincidences would have remained coincidences if I hadn't learned about the Fomenko-Nosovsky theory.
Fomenko came to the conclusion that there was no English history before the fall of Troy in the 15th century with a chronological overlap. The history of medieval England has striking similarities with the history of Byzantium. Fomenko also compiled a chronological line, where he roughly found the phantoms of the Byzantine emperors among the kings of England.

I went further and began to look for coincidences in the history of Roman and Norman Britain. William of Normandy established the rule of the Norman aristocracy in England and established laws similar to those of Charlemagne. Charlemagne bore the title of Roman emperor of the West. If we imagine that the Norman conquest was equivalent to the Roman conquest and the establishment of the Roman order in England, it turns out that under the rule of the Plantagenet and Lancaster dynasty, England was under the rule of the Roman nobility.

I do not agree that there was no history of Britain before the 15th century. Before the 15th century, there was definitely Roman power, which was destroyed as a result of the Hundred Years' War and the War of the Roses. Even in official history, England remained a single economic entity with France. The English kings spent a long time in France, talking in French (Romance group!). The wars, which are summarized by historians by the process of the Hundred Years' War, are also the process of the appearance of the first truly English kings, who now spoke English, called themselves English, became more "patriots" than just French or Norman feudal lords.

*Brutus, King Arthur and the Birth of "England for the English"*

The first time I began to read the history of England in a book by Andre Maurois. I know that this is not a good enough source for an in-depth study of history, but it has many references to documents that link the awakening of English nationalism already in the 14th century among students of medieval universities. The wars of the Hundred Years' War, peasant riots, wars with Scotland, the War of the Roses begin. *The Tudors come to power and they begin to write is the history of England before Roman rule. So, under Elizabeth, the "first manuscripts of the Anglo-Saxon chronicle" were bought, under the Tudors the image of King Arthur as a hero of Britain was finally formed, in 1502 the first printed edition of Geoffrey of Monmouth's "History of the Britons" was published.* The Tudor Kingdom needed a beautiful history of England to justify the lack of ties between Rome and Britain, because there is no Rome in Britain anymore.

If Brutus really lived in the 15th century, then England was really born in the War of the Roses. It is not difficult to prove this. Pope Pius II called for the return of Constantinople, previously traveled to Britain, about which he wrote two works (separately about Scotland and England). His full name is *Enea Silvio* Bartolomeo Piccolomini. Does it remind you of anything? According to Fomenko-Nosovsky's theory, Constantinople is Troy, but they associate the fall of Troy with the Fourth Crusade and the Gothic War. I believe that the fall of Constantinople in 1453 was the fall of Troy.

The grandson of Aeneas was *Aeneas Silvius*, and the son of Aeneas Silvius was already Brutus.
*Aeneas Silvius = Enea Silvio*
It turns out that Pope Pius II is the original of the legendary king of Alba Longa?
If the Popes are Roman kings, then the fall of their power occurred in the Thirty Years' War, to which England and France had their hand.

*This is only a theory and needs to be finalized, I did not write all my thoughts and developments. I would like to be helped in the search for ancient phantoms of English history and in general to understand the truth.*


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 9, 2021)

Prepare yourself to be bashed to the ground by the British elitists. Very interesting in any case. I agree with your point of view about the Roman-Norman correspondence when it comes to the beginning of the Roman Empire and the previous Late Republic. It's also interesting that you point at the Hundred Years War as the end of that period.


Gilda Scott said:


> The events that began in Britain in 293 BC and the events that began in 1337 have a similar meaning.


I think you meant 293 AD, right?


Gilda Scott said:


> Fomenko came to the conclusion that there was no English history before the fall of Troy in the 15th century with a chronological overlap. The history of medieval England has striking similarities with the history of Byzantium. Fomenko also compiled a chronological line, where he roughly found the phantoms of the Byzantine emperors among the kings of England.


----------



## Gilda Scott (Nov 9, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Prepare yourself to be bashed to the ground by the British elitists.


Perhaps the theory of Fomenko-Nosovsky is very bad in terms of the fact that instead of an in-depth investigation of historical figures of England, only mathematical calculations were taken as a basis. I was surprised that Fomenko used very crude designations and chronological data for the Romano-British period in his chronology of England. Therefore, my theory makes the dry mathematics of Fomenko-Nosovsky better and explains some points.


Silveryou said:


> I think you meant 293 AD, right?


Yes, its my mistake

In the book of the theory of Fomenko-Nosovsky about English history, there are dates of publications of the main primary sources about the history of medieval England, but it does not explain who and why it was necessary to forge the history of England. If anyone is interested, I will try to translate this chapter into English.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 9, 2021)

Gilda Scott said:


> In the book of the theory of Fomenko-Nosovsky about English history, there are dates of publications of the main primary sources about the history of medieval England, but it does not explain who and why it was necessary to forge the history of England. If anyone is interested, I will try to translate this chapter into English.


I already read what was available in English on chronologia.com, even though the website is now down in its non-Russian pages (the exception being the Spanish ones). There's more? What is available in the Russian page can be easily translated, but if you are talking about their books than that's an entirely different question.


----------



## Daniel (Nov 9, 2021)

Edwin Johnson wrote about this in the late 19th century.
He touched on it in "The Pauline Epistles Restudied and Explained", then wrote "The Rise of English Culture".
The conclusion is that "English history" before the Tudor monarchy is essentially all fiction.
And that many stories about "Anglo-Saxons", "Normans" etc. were written in the 16th century, show 16th century beliefs and attitudes, and were often used as 16th century propaganda tools.
While Chaucer, Bede, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicles etc. date from the same era.

Wayback Machine
The rise of English culture : Johnson, E. (Edwin), 1842-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Gilda Scott (Nov 9, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I already read what was available in English on chronologia.com, even though the website is now down in its non-Russian pages (the exception being the Spanish ones). There's more? What is available in the Russian page can be easily translated, but if you are talking about their books than that's an entirely different question.


Yes, I wrote about the book "New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome"


----------



## Daniel (Nov 9, 2021)

Archived here.
THE CHRONOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY. History: fiction or science? Volume 4
 (Starts with Chapter 15)
I find some of Fomenko's reconstruction of English history to be off, though. Such as his claim that Elizabeth I is a 'phantom reflection.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Nov 9, 2021)

This is a bit off topic maybe. But since you are discussing Fomenko etc. I post this here since it was lost for a thousand years, in line with theire theory. (Silver bible, with a crescent.)


----------



## Gilda Scott (Nov 9, 2021)

Daniel said:


> Archived here.
> THE CHRONOLOGY OF RUSSIAN HISTORY. History: fiction or science? Volume 4
> (Starts with Chapter 15)
> I find some of Fomenko's reconstruction of English history to be off, though. Such as his claim that Elizabeth I is a 'phantom reflection.


Yes, I agree, Fomenko's theory needs to be finalized.


Blackdiamond said:


> This is a bit off topic maybe. But since you are discussing Fomenko etc. I post this here since it was lost for a thousand years, in line with theire theory. (Silver bible, with a crescent.)View attachment 13619View attachment 13620


It's interesting, thank you


----------



## matematik (Nov 9, 2021)

Fomenko says pretty much the same thing about China, that all major events in Chinese history are just a reflection of Roman history and that all Chinese history before the 17th century is fake.

As it happens he seems to believe the only country with a long history that is definitely not fake is Russia. He also seems fond of conflating modern Russia and Tartaria, using terms like "Russo-Tartarian". Actually there's a poster on this forum whose main subject is "proving" that English history is really just Bulgarian history, an off-shoot of the same mentality no doubt.


----------



## Gilda Scott (Nov 10, 2021)

matematik said:


> Fomenko says pretty much the same thing about China, that all major events in Chinese history are just a reflection of Roman history and that all Chinese history before the 17th century is fake.
> 
> As it happens he seems to believe the only country with a long history that is definitely not fake is Russia. He also seems fond of conflating modern Russia and Tartaria, using terms like "Russo-Tartarian". Actually there's a poster on this forum whose main subject is "proving" that English history is really just Bulgarian history, an off-shoot of the same mentality no doubt.


Yes, I've seen this discussion, I disagree with it a bit. Triple overlay? Bulgaria = medieval England = ancient Britain? There is a problem with the fact that basically such reflections are based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the book "New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome" "The History of the Britons" was recognized as a late forgery. If we take into account my theory that some elites by the 16th century were openly fighting against Roman power, then Geoffrey of Monmouth was just the fake that the first Tudors needed.


----------



## Silencedogood (Nov 21, 2021)

If "English history" before the Tudor monarchy is essentially all fiction then we have to assume that truth remains in some form.  We should not dismiss the entire story as fiction but instead search for the incorporated nuggets of truth will most assuredly be buried within the lies.  If I were rewriting this history I would take existing literature and adapt it.  When doing this I believe they added many wars in order to explain existing ruins. It seems to me that warfare was an overwhelmingly and illogically common part of medieval life, and this is my primary disagreement with medieval history.

Thinking in the context of life and human behavior, why would the Picts, Scots, and English be constantly fighting?  I know we have a more developed society today and we care about our lives but it seems in old stories that warfare happened as often as going to work.  Was life so undervalued that people got up in the morning and went out and started a war?  Who fed people during these wars?  Who supplied the armaments and transportation to the fight?  Is it logical to even assume that lords could essentially force their subjects to march seemingly to fight every year?  Was the population of the area sufficient to sustain such constant warmongering?  Ultimately, what cause is worth dying over(and over)?


----------



## Gilda Scott (Nov 21, 2021)

Silencedogood said:


> Thinking in the context of life and human behavior, why would the Picts, Scots, and English be constantly fighting?  I know we have a more developed society today and we care about our lives but it seems in old stories that warfare happened as often as going to work.  Was life so undervalued that people got up in the morning and went out and started a war?  Who fed people during these wars?  Who supplied the armaments and transportation to the fight?  Is it logical to even assume that lords could essentially force their subjects to march seemingly to fight every year?  Was the population of the area sufficient to sustain such constant warmongering?  Ultimately, what cause is worth dying over(and over)?


The same wars are repeated in official history. In fact, there were only a few wars between England and Scotland (the Scottish War of Independence = the departure of the Romans from the Antonine Wall, the intervention of Scotland in England during the Wars of the Roses = the invasion of the Picts in the Dark Ages).


Silencedogood said:


> If "English history" before the Tudor monarchy is essentially all fiction then we have to assume that truth remains in some form.  We should not dismiss the entire story as fiction but instead search for the incorporated nuggets of truth will most assuredly be buried within the lies.  If I were rewriting this history I would take existing literature and adapt it.  When doing this I believe they added many wars in order to explain existing ruins. It seems to me that warfare was an overwhelmingly and illogically common part of medieval life, and this is my primary disagreement with medieval history.


Yes, I agree that it was Fomenko's mistake to completely reject the history of England. It's just that before the 10th century there were Celtic (?) tribes in Britain and there was no history as such.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 22, 2021)

Gilda Scott said:


> There is a problem with the fact that basically such reflections are based on Geoffrey of Monmouth, in the book "New Chronology of Russia, England and Rome" "The History of the Britons" was recognized as a late forgery.


I always have a problem with the forgery narrative. It seems to me that most of the time a book is declared false because it doesn't fit in once own preconceived point of view (also called BIAS). These books have plenty of informations which directly deny the common perception of history so I don't see how it's possible to blindly state they are 'fake' without a second thought.
That said, I'm not saying that forgery doesn't exist, but I don't think it's so easy to detect. The mathematical approach is surely fascinating, but I've not seen the proper demonstration of many of their claims, and in any case the end result is always the attribution of Western history to Eastern Europe, which is possible only by declaring everything 'fake'... and there's a lot of things to proclaim 'fake' in order to achieve that goal, imo.


----------



## Gilda Scott (Dec 12, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I always have a problem with the forgery narrative. It seems to me that most of the time a book is declared false because it doesn't fit in once own preconceived point of view (also called BIAS). These books have plenty of informations which directly deny the common perception of history so I don't see how it's possible to blindly state they are 'fake' without a second thought.
> That said, I'm not saying that forgery doesn't exist, but I don't think it's so easy to detect. The mathematical approach is surely fascinating, but I've not seen the proper demonstration of many of their claims, and in any case the end result is always the attribution of Western history to Eastern Europe, which is possible only by declaring everything 'fake'... and there's a lot of things to proclaim 'fake' in order to achieve that goal, imo.


The officials consider it a fake (or rather not a fake, but a full-fledged book of the 11th century) since these books do not fit into their concept, because these are early books of the process of rewriting history. In the 16th century, the elites did not yet have an opinion on how to rewrite history. The normal codification of the rewritten history began to be compiled only in the 19th century. If we are looking for a real history of the world, then we should not turn every fake recognized by the officials into an idol.


----------

