# Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I



## Silveryou (Nov 5, 2020)

I have found a translation in English for the long inscription at the bottom (https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the-met/curatorial-departments/drawings-and-prints/durer-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor) but I'm dying to know what is written on the arch itself. Especially I would like to know if the history written on it corresponds to official history. The list of Roman Emperors on the left is different from the official one, there are fewer emperors than there should be, no distinction between Eastern and Western Roman Empires, no gap between the Roman Empire of old and the Holy Roman Empire, some not recognised Emperors...

*Is this old German language? Please, can someone translate?*

Here the link with a clear reproduction of the arch:
Albrecht Durer - Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I





Here the identifications I made of the Roman Emperors (though I can't understand the descriptions):

1.

2.

3.

4.

5/a.

5/b.


5/c.5/d.6/a.

6/b.

6/c.7.


1. Julius Anfang Kaise'lichen hauestat (Julius Caesar - Wikipedia), Augustus der glückselig (Augustus - Wikipedia), Tiberius der hart (Tiberius - Wikipedia), Claudius der Wunderpar (Claudius - Wikipedia), Vespasian dy rach gotes (Vespasian - Wikipedia), Titus lust der Mennschen (Titus - Wikipedia), Nerva der mitsam (Nerva - Wikipedia), Traianus der Best (Trajan - Wikipedia), Hadrian der Senfft (Hadrian - Wikipedia), Antonius der guttig (Antoninus Pius - Wikipedia), Severus der Ernstlich (Septimius Severus - Wikipedia), Alexander der Hutsam (Severus Alexander - Wikipedia).
2. Gordian der hinleger (Gordian III - Wikipedia), Philippus d'erst cristelich Kaiser (Philip the Arab - Wikipedia), Decius der behermdt (?) (Decius - Wikipedia), Aurelian der Widerbringer (Aurelian - Wikipedia), Probus der frum (Probus (emperor) - Wikipedia), Diocletianus der mechtig (Diocletian - Wikipedia), Constantinus der cristennlich (Constantine the Great - Wikipedia), Valentinianus der Starck (Valentinian I - Wikipedia), Gracian der begnadet (Gratian - Wikipedia).
3. Theodosius der Von[?]-forchtig (Theodosius I - Wikipedia), Archadius der Lieplich (Arcadius - Wikipedia), Honorius der Wanderlbar (Honorius (emperor) - Wikipedia), Odaecer der heerfurer (Odoacer - Wikipedia), Dietrich vö[n] pern adk vö[n] hispania (Theodoric the Great - Wikipedia - also Legends about Theodoric the Great - Wikipedia), Anastasius d[er] veramer (Anastasius I Dicorus - Wikipedia), Justinian der Rechtsetzer (Justinian I - Wikipedia), Eraclius erfechter des heiligen kreutzes (Heraclius - Wikipedia), Carolus der gross (Charlemagne - Wikipedia).
4. Ludovicus der gutigist (Louis the Pious - Wikipedia), Carolus caluus adk vö[n] Flandern (Charles the Bald - Wikipedia), Otto 1 der gross (Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Otto 2 der plaachtod (?) der Sarakenen (Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Otto 3 wü[n]der der welt (Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Sant Hainrich 2 der heilig (Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Conr 2 der stifter (Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Hainrich 3 der beruwig (Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Hainrich 4 der versucher (Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia).
5/a. Rudolff 1 ltecht der hohe felsn d[er] teutsche lannd (Rudolf of Rheinfelden - Wikipedia - I don't know if it's him!), Conrad 3 der kreutzer (Conrad III of Germany - Wikipedia - it should be him!), Fridrich 1 d[er] straffer (Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Heinrich 6 der gewaltig (Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Friderich 2 der krteger (Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Wilhelm kron von holannd (William II of Holland - Wikipedia), Reichart eer von england (Richard of Cornwall - Wikipedia), Alphons getzter vö[n] hyspania (Alfonso X of Castile - Wikipedia).
5/b. Rudolf der Streitbar (Rudolf I of Germany - Wikipedia).
5/c. Albrecht 1 der Sighafft (Albert I, King of the Romans - Wikipedia).
5/d. Heinrich 7 der bedechtig (Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Ludivig der grossmütig (Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia).
6/a. Carol 4 der not hafft (Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Sigmud der vleissig (Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia).
6/b. Albrecht 2 der gluckhaftig (Albert II of Germany - Wikipedia).
6/c. Lasla auf die zett d[er] mechtigtst künig der erstenheit (Ladislaus the Posthumous - Wikipedia - I don't know if it's him!).
7. Fridrich (Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Maximilian (Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia).
EMPERORS ON THE ARCH: 57

This is a list of the omitted official Western Roman Emperors from Julius Caesar to Romulus Augustus:
Caligula, Nero, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Domitian, Marcus Aurelius, Lucius Verus, Commodus, Pertinax, Didius Julianus, Caracalla, Geta, Macrinus, Diadumenian, Elagabalus, Maximinus Thrax, Gordian 2, Pupienus, Balbinus, Gordian 3, Philip 2, Herennius Etruscus, Hostilian, Trebonianus Gallus, Volusianus, Aemilian, Valerian, Gallienus, Saloninus, Claudius Gothicus, Quintillus, Tacitus, Florianus, Carus, Carinus, Numerian, Maximian, Galerius, Constantius 1, Severus, Maxentius, Licinius, Maximinus Daia, Valerius Valens, Martinian, Constantine 2, Constantius 2, Constans, Vetranio, Julian, Jovian, Valens, Valentinian 2, Magnus Maximus, Victor, Eugenius, Constantine 3, Constans 2, Constantius 3, Joannes, Valentinian 3, Petronius Maximus, Avitus, Majorian, Libius Severus, Anthemius, Olybrius, Glycerius, Julius Nepos, Romulus Augustus.
EMPERORS OMITTED: 71
List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia

A list of the omitted official Eastern Roman Emperors (aka Byzantine Emperors) from the split from the Western Empire under Arcadius to the Emperor reigning when Charlemagne was crowned:
Theodosius 2, Marcian, Leo the Thracian, Leo 2, Zeno, Basiliscus, Marcus, Justin 1, Justin 2, Tiberius 2 Constantine, Maurice, Theodosius, Phocas, Constantine 3, Heraclonas, Tiberius, Martinus, Constans 2, Constantine 4, Heraclius, Tiberius, Justinian 2, Leontios, Tiberios 3 Apsimaros, Tiberius, Philippikos Bardanes, Anastasios 2, Theodosius 3, Leo 3 the Isaurian, Constantine 5, Artabasdos, Nikephoros, Leo 4 the Khazar, Constantine 6, Irene of Athens.
EMPERORS OMITTED: 35
List of Roman emperors - Wikipedia

List of the omitted official Holy Roman Emperors from Charlemagne to Maximilian 1:
Lothair 1, Louis 2, Charles 3, Guy 1, Lambert 1, Arnulph, Louis 3, Berengar 1, Henry 5, Lothair 2, Otto 4.
EMPERORS OMITTED: 11
Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia

TOTAL EMPERORS OMITTED: 117

*Please, can someone translate the test on the Arch?*

Here some very interesting statements on the Monumental Inscription, directly contradicting modern history
(https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor):




_At the very bottom will be seen three matrons who represent the most distinguished nations of Troy, Sicambria and Francia. It must be understood that the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._



This is truly interesting. You can see how in the description of the Sicambrians on Wikipedia (Sicambri - Wikipedia), historians transformed this people in a small and anonymous Celtic/Germanic people (choose what you like the most!).
The reality is in the sections called "Sicambri as poetic name of Salian Franks" and "Sicambri in Frankish mythology", in which is stated that these people are the same as the Franks. On the inscription above the court historian Johannes Stabius (a true historian, indeed) says that the Sicambrians were _subsequently _known as Franks. CORRECT.
It is stated on the Wiki that "the Merovingian Frankish leader Clovis I, on the occasion of his baptism into the Catholic faith, was addressed as a Sicamber by Saint Remigius, the officiating bishop of Rheims". CORRECT.
Also: "An anonymous work of 727 called _Liber Historiae Francorum_ states that following the fall of Troy, 12,000 Trojans led by chiefs Priam and Antenor moved to the Tanais (Don) river, settled in Pannonia near the Sea of Azov and founded a city called Sicambria. In just 2 generations from the fall of Troy (by modern scholars dated in the late Bronze Age 1550-1200 BC) they arrived in the late 4th century AD at the Rhine". This is the true story misdated by historians to the impossibly long gone 1550-1200 BC.
"These stories have obvious difficulties. Historians, including eyewitnesses like Caesar, have given us accounts that place the Sicambri firmly at the delta of the Rhine, and archaeologists have confirmed ongoing settlement of peoples. Furthermore, the myth does not come from the Sicambri themselves, but from later Franks, and includes an incorrect geography". This is what I am talking about. Firstly, they establish a wrong chronology, then they say that Caesar saw the Sicambri on the Rhine and then that the _myth comes from the Franks!!!! _It is obvious that if the Franks were the Sicambri, they should have known their history better than modern and really smart historians and it is obvious that Caesar actually met THE FRANKS, or, to say it better, the Salian Franks (Salian Franks - Wikipedia)!!!

Nowadays Habsburgs and Merovingians are considered two different and not related families. And so historians claim that the Habsburgs created for themselves a fake family tree to justify their power. I see things in a different way. The chronological mischief has separated the two dinasties on paper, probably for political reasons, and the culprit had probably the possibility/ability to do it and also the motive. Was it the Church of Rome? Just saying...

By the way, in the translation above it is said that the Merovingians defeated the Sicambri (aka Franks) becoming their kings AFTER having conquered Pannonia (aka Austria-Hungary). So it is implied (or so it seems to me) that the name Franks was attributed to the Sicambrians AFTER the Merovingians became their kings. With this I must therefore revalue what I said before, because Caesar probably encountered the Sicambri BEFORE they were subdued by the Merovingians. The only thing certain is that the Merovingians were TROYANS.
Troyans from the Mediterranean Sea? I don't think so.

So here a treasure hunt for all of you (and me): where the legendary city of Sicambria was supposed to be? The Sicambrians were apparently Troyans themselves, as reported in the Wiki, even though, as I said, they never stationed in Pannonia... or maybe yes? Good luck!

*Please, can someone translate the test on the Arch? (an Italian translation I have seen differs here from the English one, stating that these Troyans conquered the Sicambria "on this side of the Rhine", whatever "on this side means". Is it an interpolation not present in the original. It would not surprise me).*


_The tabernacle above the title is a mysterium of ancient Egyptian letters deriving from King Osiris. It has been interpreted word for word to describe Maximilian as..._



First of all, where are these letters? Is there someone who can find them? Have they been deleted?
The Egyptian reference is quite mysterious. Is it supposed to be the Egyptian Egypt, or is it somewhere else?
Osiris here is not a God but a King. Everything suggests that Osiris was perceived as the first King or something like that.
There were interpreters of ancient Egyptian script during the middle-ages. It's a shame that apparently nothing has remained of those letters on the Arch.


_Flanking the great tower above the Portal of Honor and Might, above the Griffons and below the heralds are placed two knights in antique armor holding two ancient Roman banners. The one on the left has an eagle; that on the right has a dragon. These emblems were used in Roman times and carried into battle. Those who carried them were called Aquiliferi and Draconiferi. Because of the Emperor Maximilian was honorably elected to the society of Roman Emperors and Kings, and because his Majesty has worn the Roman Crown with great distinction, and furthermore an Arch of Honor, similar to a Triumphal Arch, has been erected for him, it is only proper that the two Eagle and Dragon, leaders, together with their pipers and drummers, be placed upon it and thus remembered forever._


​Everyone knows about the eagles of Rome, but what about the dragons of Rome? Here, in an obscure and not so well advertised Wikipedia page (Draconarius - Wikipedia), we find out that the Romans inherited this standard by the Sarmatians through the Dacians. And the Draconarius, the signifer bearer, became under Constantine the bearer of the _labarum_, the Chi-Rho vexillum representing the name of Christ. But how is it possible that the Italian Romans used the insignia of the defeated enemy! It doesn't make sense at all...
The Romans descended from the Troyans like every other nation, if they were a nation by the way. Therefore I think that Dacians and Sarmatians should also to be considered as Troyans, keeping in mind that this Troy was probably not a settlement on the Mediterranean Sea. In addition to this the Tartarian vibe is really strong here, even though Tartars are not mentioned, because our Johannes Stabius speaks of Troyans.
Are Troyans the key to understand the Tartars? Snorri Sturluson wrote something about it, but historians don't like these anachronistic fables!

The English translation says that Maximilian I "was honorably elected to the society of Roman Emperors and Kings". The _society_? I've never thought about Emperors as belonging to societies. Maybe secret? Or they were public at the time and secret today? But I'm just crazy and probably the translation is wrong!!

*Please, can someone translate the test on the Arch from German?*


_The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality. From it derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria. It is symbolized by the matron in the center of the three pictured on the bottom of the family tree of the dynasty._


 ​
First of all Julius Caesar is simply called Julius, as he should be, I want to add, because it's more simple and logic to assume that _Caesar _(or Kaiser, Tsar...) was the title of that Emperor called Julius. But historians say that the guy was so famous to inspire his people in attributing to their generals his name... OK.

_The Mark of the Rising Sun! _Emperors Julius and Nero (this one is not present in the list of Emperors above) said that the Archducky of Austria derived from it. The term Mark probably stands for the march as a territory. The territory of the Rising Sun.
The only thing that comes to my mind is a passage from one of Fomenko's books (http://chronologia.org/en/seven/1N01-EN-031-048.pdf) in which he says that “Petrarch… made the statement that he was supposed to have based on a number of philological and psychological observations, that the privileges granted by Nero Caesar to the House of Austrian Dukes [in the XIII century a.d.! – A. F.] – were fake. It needed proof in those days”. This is difficult. Maybe Austria was really that Mark, but it could also be an Eastern territory, because that's the meaning of the name Austria. This name was also applied to a part of Langobardia Major (Austria (Lombard) - Wikipedia) and the migrations of the Lombards followed those of the Hungarians, being practically the same. It was also the name of one of the regions of the Frankish Kingdom, casually called Austrasia (Austrasia - Wikipedia), with this ...asia part quite interesting.

"From it (the Mark of the Rising Sun) derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria".
Weren't supposed to be the Franks, and not Hungary/Hungarians, the heirs of the Sicambrians?

So, let's do a recap:

_The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality. From it derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria._
_The Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._


​I think there is a problem with the true identity of these people: Troyans, Sicambrians and Franks.

My interpretation is that the Troyan lineage was obviously present at Troy and represented by the Rampant Lion, then they moved to Sicambria (the territory of modern Austria/Hungary), subduing and merging with the Sicambrians, who were Troyans as well, and therefore retaining the Rampant Lion as a symbol. Then, proceeding with the name of Sicambrians, they moved to the Rhine territory, where they became known as Salian Franks (Salian Franks - Wikipedia), and subsequently merged with the Ripuarian Franks (Ripuarian Franks - Wikipedia), also known as Franks, whose symbol were the three frogs (?! - I can't recognize this symbol), and giving birth to France as a nation.
By the way, isn't it strange that the original name of the city of Troy was Ilion, and its symbol was apparently a Lion?

*Please, can someone translate the test on the Arch from German?*


----------



## air_dance (Nov 6, 2020)

I will try to explain the missing emperors. This list that is from the arch is a late edition for me. 
It betrays him Alexander (Severus Alexander - Wikipedia). 2. Gordian (Gordian I - Wikipedia), Philippus (Philip the Arab - Wikipedia)
*Here* you will find out why. These are not Roman emperors. They are not present in the Bible, but they are present in the Hasmonean dynasty. In the Bible that has been decoded, they are present instead:
1. Geta (209-211) = Maxim Thrax (235-238) = Aristobulus II (66-63 BC) 
2. Macrinus (217-218) = Gordian I (238-238) = Hyrcanus II (67-66 BC) 
3. Diadumenian (30 days) = Philip Arab (244-249) = Antigonus (40-37 BC)
4. Severus Alexander (222-235) = Alexander Jannaeus (103-76 BC) = Nebuchadnezzar I (1125-1104 BC) (The conqueror ending the dynasty. It can also be considered the Great Flood). This arrangement betrays the falsification of history.

*These three Geta, Macrinus, Diadumenian have been replaced by these three Gordian I, Philip Arab, Severus Alexander.*
Alexander (end of Dynasty) is followed by Decius. From my research, Decius was the first emperor in the book of the Bible.
*This is where* the decoding of the books of the Kingdom of the Bible begins. The first king was Trajan Decius. He has two priests. They are not on the arch. The Bible explains that as well. They are not emperors, but priests of God (monks).
The monks are: *Herennius_Etruscus *(251-251) and (*Hostilian*) (251-251).

The arch is made up of the pages of the Bible. That's why some emperors are gone. Another option is for the creator of the arch to have only individual books from the Bible at hand. That is. The Bible is not yet united in one book.

*ADAM and EVE* = _Arch of Glory_
*Diocletian 284-305 Constantius 305-306 Constantine I 306-337*  Valentin I 364-375  Gratian 367-383  Theodosius *379-395* Honorius 393-423 Arcadius 383-408 Theod II 402-450 *Leo I 457-474* *Zeno 474-491* *Anastasius 491-518* Justin I 518-527 
Here is how it is on the Arch:
*Diocletian 284-305 Constantine I 306-337 Valentin I 364-375 Gratian 367-383 Theodosius 379-395 *Arcadius* 383-408 Honorius 393-423 
Anastasius 491-518* Justin I 518-527 

According to *my table*, here is what it looks like:


duplication of the world (table)_Arch of Glory__missing Arch of Glory_*Antoni Pius** 138-161*Eraclius 610-641*Charl Martel** 718-741 *Heraclius - Wikipedia*M Aurelius 161-180* *Carloman I 768-771* *Septimius Severus 193-211* Carolus 800-814*Charlemagne 800-814**L. Verus 161-169* +
*Commodus 177-192* *Pepin Short 751-768* Caracalla 198-217Pepin of Italy 781-810*Elagabalus 218-222*Ludovicus 813-840Louis the Pious - WikipediaGeta 209-211 Otto 1 (962-973)Macrinus 217-218 Otto 2 (973-983)




Diadumenian (30 days)Otto 3 (996-1002)*End of dynasty**End of dynasty**End of dynasty**End of dynasty*




*Beginning of a dynasty**Beginning of a dynasty**Beginning of a dynasty**Beginning of a dynasty*Justin I 518-527  Sant Hainrich 2

Lucius Verus = bulgarian word "vera" (faith) = Lucius Faithus (real name). Heraclius (Horus, Christ). Pippin Short served the Pope very well.
M.Aurelius + Commodus + L. Verus can be considered adopted by Anthony Pius. For that there will be none.
1. Simeon the Great of Bulgaria (893-927) = 2. _Septimius Severus (193-218)_ = 3. _Seuthes III_ (300-295 BC) = 4. Charlemagne (800-814) = 5. Yaroslav the Wise (1019-1054)


----------



## Silveryou (Feb 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> _At the very bottom will be seen three matrons who represent the most distinguished nations of Troy, Sicambria and Francia. It must be understood that the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._
> _The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality. From it derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria._



"It must be understood that the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy"
Clovis I (Clovis I - Wikipedia) was the first king of the Franks (Franks - Wikipedia) and founder of the Merovingian dynasty (Merovingian dynasty - Wikipedia). Him being the first king of the Franks means that he was the first ruler to reign upon the united Frankish tribes which previously had various dukes (military commanders) as their leaders. He was a direct descendant of Hector of Troy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hector???), therefore he was a Frank AND a Trojan. Historians don't recognise this lineage but was common knowledge in the Middle-Ages. Fomenko talks about the equivalence of the names "Frank" AND "Trojan".

"and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria"
Clovis I conquered the territory corresponding to Hungary and Austria. Historians don't recognise this conquest.

"and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks"
Clovis I also defeated the Sicambrians (Sicambri - Wikipedia). If the Sicambrians were subsequently known as Franks (Salian Franks - Wikipedia), this conquest should be the unification of the Frankish tribes (aka the Trojan tribes).

"and over the Gauls"
Clovis I conquered Gaul (Clovis I - Wikipedia), but historians specifically say he conquered Roman Gaul (Kingdom of Soissons - Wikipedia) and their kings were refered to as "Kings of the Romans".

"the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality"
The text seems to imply that these Emperors lived AFTER Clovis I, because the text previously said "the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria". Since the Mark of the Rising Sun is actually the translation of Austria, we can infer that those who gave the new name to the region (Julius and Nero) came after Clovis I.

"the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria"
The Sicambrians actually settled in Pannonia, which became known as Sicambria after the capital they founded (Sicambri - Wikipedia). One of the settlers, Antenor (Antenor (mythology) - Wikipedia) was considered to be the founder of Padua, in Northern Italy and “ancient” Cisalpine Gaul (Cisalpine Gaul - Wikipedia).

Could Clovis I have conquered Cisalpine Gaul instead of Gallia Belgica? The first was part of Odoacer's Kingdom of Italy (Odoacer - Wikipedia), fallen in 493 AD to the armies of Theodoric the Great while the second was conquered by Clovis I in 486/487 AD or 493/494 AD from the Roman Syagrius (Syagrius - Wikipedia).


----------



## Worsaae (Feb 3, 2021)

I have a very hard time reading the text. I can recognize some german words but the text is almost unreadable for me. If you could type what needs to be translated, then I will do my best. 
I haven't managed to read everything in this thread yet but I must say that this is "chefs kiss". You definitely nailed it and this could be big, in my opinion. 
The way they mislead here is the exact same standard of procedure that they use today, when creating their false narratives. When you see their lies, it becomes so easy to see it, but when only presented with their version of reality it is almost impossible to figure out. "Oh, the franks wouldn't know about Sicambria" - it sounds plausible as long as you don't learn that the Sicambrians are the franks. Excellent detective work. 

I also liked your "The evidence doesn't fit our timeline, so the evidence is wrong" comment. Bravo. 
I will keep reading but had to share my thoughts.


----------



## Silveryou (Feb 3, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> what needs to be translated


EVERYTHING!!!!!


----------



## Worsaae (Feb 3, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Worsaae said:
> 
> 
> > what needs to be translated
> ...


But I can't read those letters... that's my problem


----------



## Silveryou (Feb 4, 2021)

Worsaae said:


> But I can't read those letters... that's my problem


Ok, I am going to search for a German text somewhere. In the meantime if you want to translate the surnames given to the Emperors, that would be great. I have copied them from some website, so they should be correct. You can find them in the "list" at the beginning of the first post. Thank you


----------



## Worsaae (Feb 4, 2021)

1. Julius Anfang Kaise'lichen hauestat (Julius Caesar - Wikipedia), Beginning of the Ceasar-Act
 Augustus der glückselig (Augustus - Wikipedia), Augustus the Happy
 Tiberius der hart (Tiberius - Wikipedia), Tiberius the harsh/tough
Claudius der Wunderpar (Claudius - Wikipedia), the wonderful
 Vespasian dy rach gotes (Vespasian - Wikipedia), the wrath of God
Titus lust der Mennschen (Titus - Wikipedia), lust of the people
Nerva der mitsam (Nerva - Wikipedia), no clue
Traianus der Best (Trajan - Wikipedia), the best
Hadrian der Senfft (Hadrian - Wikipedia), nio clue, maybe "the last"
Antonius der guttig (Antoninus Pius - Wikipedia), the Good
Severus der Ernstlich (Septimius Severus - Wikipedia), the serious
Alexander der Hutsam (Severus Alexander - Wikipedia). careful
2. Gordian der hinleger (Gordian III - Wikipedia), maybe: the lazy 
Philippus d'erst cristelich Kaiser (Philip the Arab - Wikipedia), the first christian/christlike Caesar
Decius der behermdt (?) (Decius - Wikipedia), no clue
Aurelian der Widerbringer (Aurelian - Wikipedia), the restorer 
 Probus der frum (Probus (emperor) - Wikipedia), maybe: god fearing
Diocletianus der mechtig (Diocletian - Wikipedia), the mighty
Constantinus der cristennlich (Constantine the Great - Wikipedia), the christian
Valentinianus der Starck (Valentinian I - Wikipedia), strong
Gracian der begnadet (Gratian - Wikipedia). blessed
3. Theodosius der Von[?]-forchtig (Theodosius I - Wikipedia), fearful
Archadius der Lieplich (Arcadius - Wikipedia), lovely
 Honorius der Wanderlbar (Honorius (emperor) - Wikipedia), not sure
Odaecer der heerfurer (Odoacer - Wikipedia), Army Leader 
Dietrich vö[n] pern adk vö[n] hispania (Theodoric the Great - Wikipedia - also Legends about Theodoric the Great - Wikipedia), of pern and of  spain.

I will do the rest later, going to sleep now.


----------



## Silveryou (Feb 5, 2021)

@Worsaae you have to finish your homework!!!


----------



## Worsaae (Feb 6, 2021)

Anastasius d[er] veramer (Anastasius I Dicorus - Wikipedia), no clue, maybe the poor? 
Justinian der Rechtsetzer (Justinian I - Wikipedia), the law maker
Eraclius erfechter des heiligen kreutzes (Heraclius - Wikipedia), crusader/fighter for/of the holy cross
Carolus der gross (Charlemagne - Wikipedia) the great
4. Ludovicus der gutigist (Louis the Pious - Wikipedia), friendly/good
Carolus caluus adk vö[n] Flandern (Charles the Bald - Wikipedia), from flandern 
Otto 1 der gross (Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), the great
 Otto 2 der plaachtod (?) der Sarakenen (Otto II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), something-dead of the Saracen
Otto 3 wü[n]der der welt (Otto III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), miracle of the world
Sant Hainrich 2 der heilig (Henry II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), the holy
Conr 2 der stifter (Conrad II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), the contributor (maybe)
Hainrich 3 der beruwig (Henry III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), Based 
 Hainrich 4 der versucher (Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia). tempter
5/a. Rudolff 1 ltecht der hohe felsn d[er] teutsche lannd (Rudolf of Rheinfelden - Wikipedia - I don't know if it's him!), the high rock of germany
Conrad 3 der kreutzer (Conrad III of Germany - Wikipedia - it should be him!), crosser. he makes other people crossed.
Fridrich 1 d[er] straffer (Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), maybe punisher
 Heinrich 6 der gewaltig (Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), the good/big (imagine "very" turned into something you can be)
Friderich 2 der krteger (Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), mistyped? probably the warrior
Wilhelm kron von holannd (William II of Holland - Wikipedia), crown of holland
Reichart eer von england (Richard of Cornwall - Wikipedia), something of England [honor?, lord, noble, heir]
Alphons getzter vö[n] hyspania (Alfonso X of Castile - Wikipedia). The last of Spain
5/b. Rudolf der Streitbar (Rudolf I of Germany - Wikipedia). strident
5/c. Albrecht 1 der Sighafft (Albert I, King of the Romans - Wikipedia). no clue, probably easy to translate.
5/d. Heinrich 7 der bedechtig (Henry VII, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), careful
Ludivig der grossmütig (Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia). extremely brave
6/a. Carol 4 der not hafft (Charles IV, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), nut hops? no clue
Sigmud der vleissig (Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia). hard working/industrious
6/b. Albrecht 2 der gluckhaftig (Albert II of Germany - Wikipedia). happy (or lucky)
6/c. Lasla auf die zett d[er] mechtigtst künig der erstenheit (Ladislaus the Posthumous - Wikipedia - I don't know if it's him!). something of the mightiest king of the "first days" (first-ness)
7. Fridrich (Frederick III, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia), 
Maximilian (Maximilian I, Holy Roman Emperor - Wikipedia).


Silveryou said:


> @Worsaae you have to finish your homework!!!


If you can read the letters and post it here, then I can translate it. I have the rest of the night off.


----------



## Silveryou (Feb 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Silveryou said:
> 
> 
> > _At the very bottom will be seen three matrons who represent the most distinguished nations of Troy, Sicambria and Francia. It must be understood that the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._
> ...


"An anonymous work of 727 called _Liber Historiae Francorum_ states that following the fall of Troy, 12,000 Trojans led by chiefs Priam and Antenor moved to the Tanais (Don) river, settled in Pannonia near the Sea of Azov and founded a city called Sicambria" (Sicambri - Wikipedia).
The text states that Pannonia was near the Sea of Azov and we should find there the ancient city called Sicambria. This story is extraordinarily similar to that told by Herodotus about the Scythians:
"There is also another different story, now to be related, in which I am more inclined to put faith than in any other. It is that the wandering Scythians once dwelt in Asia, and there warred with the Massagetae, but with ill success; they therefore quitted their homes, crossed the Araxes, and entered the land of Cimmeria" (Scythians - Wikipedia).
It is almost incredible to find the true history of the Sicambrians given bit by bit through numerous unrelated articles. What do we read about Cimmerians?
"In sources beginning with the Royal Frankish Annals, the Merovingian kings of the Franks traditionally traced their lineage through a pre-Frankish tribe called the Sicambri (or Sugambri), mythologized as a group of Cimmerians from the mouth of the Danube river, but who instead came from Gelderland in modern Netherlands and are named for the Sieg river" (Cimmerians - Wikipedia).

If you search for true history on Wikipedia you should look to what is written in the Notes, Mythology and Legacy sections!!! Here a good link (Frankish mythology - Wikipedia)... doesn't talk of Cimmerians though!

Having established the equivalence of Salian Franks (Salian Franks - Wikipedia), Sicambrians (Sicambri - Wikipedia) and Cimmerians (Cimmerians - Wikipedia), we have now to understand the true regions settled by these Trojans. Around the Rhine river, Austria/Hungary or near the Azov Sea?!?!?!?


Worsaae said:


> If you can read the letters and post it here, then I can translate it. I have the rest of the night off.


I've missed the train?


----------



## Worsaae (Feb 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Silveryou said:
> 
> 
> > Silveryou said:
> ...


You can still post it and I will do it once I have time.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 24, 2021)

Correct link to the Monumental Inscription of the Arch: https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor.

*chronologia.org* (Fomenko's website) is down right now. Is it for everyone?



Silveryou said:


> _The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality. From it derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria. It is symbolized by the matron in the center of the three pictured on the bottom of the family tree of the dynasty._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The missing image...


----------



## Safranek (Sep 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> *chronologia.org* (Fomenko's website) is down right now. Is it for everyone?


The site is up and running for me now.


----------



## Silveryou (Sep 25, 2021)

Safranek said:


> The site is up and running for me now.


For me too fortunately. A sort of backup is needed though, just in case.



Silveryou said:


> "the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality"
> The text seems to imply that these Emperors lived AFTER Clovis I, because the text previously said "the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria". Since the Mark of the Rising Sun is actually the translation of Austria, we can infer that those who gave the new name to the region (Julius and Nero) came after Clovis I.


Another very important thing to add is that it's implied that the geographical position of the Roman Empire (and therefore its capital) was to the West of Austria (which was implied to be the most eastern territory of the Empire), corresponding to the territory of France, possibly, or alternatively with the British Isles of the Iberian Peninsula. This is an impressive territorial overlap with the so-called Carolingian Empire, which is considered the 'prequel' of the Holy Roman Empire.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 16, 2021)

Interesting bit found in archived replies:


> *"EUROPE'S EARLY HISTORY SUPPRESSED*
> European civilization — and its history — is as old as Egypt's. But it has been suppressed. Not since the close of the seventeenth century has it been allowed to be taught publicly.
> It did not happen in a day. It took centuries of calculated plotting and ridicule to wipe from the pages of history the record of early Europe. Historians and theologians have conspired together to label Europe's early history as "myth."
> Their motive is plain. If theologians and historians had allowed the early history of Europe to be taught in schools and universities, they would have had to admit the authenticity and the authority of the Bible. THAT they did not want to do.
> ...



These seem to connect Homer in the Baltic and France - Biblical Israel. A. Khrustalyov and F. Vinci both quoted Saxon Grammaticus, which basically moves the events happening in Homer's poems just a bit before the events of the New Testament. The Pannonian link merges these two territorially.

P.S. Khrustalyov also mentioned that the law of Salian Franks is similar to the Old Testament law, what do you think, @Silveryou?


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Another very important thing to add is that it's implied that the geographical position of the Roman Empire (and therefore its capital) was to the West of Austria (which was implied to be the most eastern territory of the Empire), corresponding to the territory of France, possibly, or alternatively with the British Isles of the Iberian Peninsula. This is an impressive territorial overlap with the so-called Carolingian Empire, which is considered the 'prequel' of the Holy Roman Empire


Could the word Austria be related in any way, shape or form to the word *austri*, which means south? That is, in contradiction to it being and meaning east?

austri - Wiktionary
Google Переводчик

P.S. Also note the similarity between the words Cymri and Cimmerian


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 30, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> P.S. Khrustalyov also mentioned that the law of Salian Franks is similar to the Old Testament law, what do you think, @Silveryou?


I don't have an answer yet, also because your posts on the France-Bible thread are really tooooooo looooong for me to read and understand properly. But I'll try to catch up, sooner or later... In any case the Salian law is one of those things that interests me the most. Were the Salian Franks and the Roman Salii (Salii - Wikipedia) connected? Historians kindly ask us us to not even try to put them side by side!


Sasyexa said:


> Could the word Austria be related in any way, shape or form to the word *austri*, which means south? That is, in contradiction to it being and meaning east?


You read my mind, as always. I omitted it because I don't believe it to be true,since the Western explanation fits better with the events regarding Caesar with his gallic campaign and the Norman position in the Middle-ages. But I have to say that from a 'germanic' point of view Austria is definitively the southern kingdom!


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 30, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Were the Salian Franks and the Roman Salii (Salii - Wikipedia) connected?


Interesting links you got here. An interesting bit from there:


> Because the earliest Roman calendar had begun with the month of March, Hermann Usener thought the ceremonies of the _ancilia movere_ were a ritual expulsion of the old year, represented by the mysterious figure of Mamurius Veturius, to make way for the new god Mars born on March 1. On the Ides of March, a man ritually named as Mamurius Veturius was beaten with long white sticks in the _sacrum Mamurii_, in Usener's view as a form of scapegoating. Mamurius was the mythic blacksmith who forged eleven replicas of the original divine shield that had dropped from the sky.
> 
> According to Usener and Ludwig Preller Mars would be a god of war and fertility while Mamurius Veturius would mean "Old Mars". Mars is himself a dancer, and the head of the Salian dancers, patrician young men whose parents were both living (_patrimi_ and _matrimi_). Wissowa compares the Salii with the noble youth who dance the _Lusus Troiae_. The ritual dance of the Salii would thus be a coalescence of an initiation into adulthood and war with a scapegoat ritual (see also _pharmakos)_.



Worship of Mars, that is, Ares. "A ritual expulsion of the old year" at the dawn of March and then this "mysterious figure of Mamurius Veturius" which meant the "Old Mars".

Why is it interesting? This celebration still exists! I don't know about the peculiarities of the western tradition, but at least in the Russian sphere we celebrate the New Year more than we do Christmas. There is a character associated with this tradition who resembles Santa Claus and he is called Дед Мороз (pronounced Ded Maroz), translates to Grandpa Frost.

Are they related?


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 31, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Are they related?


Don't know. Bare in mind that Roman new year started during spring. In any case Moroz-Maroz-Mraz... is embarassingly similar to the Italian month Marzo (translation March), derived from Latin Martius, which is derived from Mars, as you said. Interesting...


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 31, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Bare in mind that Roman new year started during spring.


Another interesting excerpt from wiki:



> Formation of the image
> 
> Ded Moroz entered the literary tradition in 1840 - with the publication of the collection of fairy tales "The Tales of Grandfather Irenaeus" by V. F. Odoevsky. The collection included the fairy tale "Moroz Ivanovich" , which was the first to give a literary interpretation of the image of folklore and ceremonial Frost, previously acting only as a pagan host of cold and winter cold.
> 
> ...


----------



## Silveryou (Oct 31, 2021)

But the most interesting part is that Mars would mean 'frost' or something related. This is huge, since the name of the god doesn't mean anything in Latin, afaik


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 31, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> But the most interesting part is that Mars would mean 'frost' or something related. This is huge, since the name of the god doesn't mean anything in Latin, afaik


Some speculations:

Maybe when the names of the gods were translated between languages something was mixed up? The domains of the gods overlap between cultures, but some aspects vary greatly, so it is possible.

Maybe it's even more complicated, by assuming the gods as beings who resided different territories and answered to different races. Then one god who is benevolent to one people, could be viewed as evil by another one?

Another interesting thought:
Grandfather is *avus* in Latin, which looks similar to *ovis*, which means sheep (Lithuanian avis or Russian avca). No disrespect towards the elderly by the way. Ram is a type of sheep and in Latin is *aries*.
That reminded me of a thread were old sages, astrology and a warrior race (any similarities between Ares, Aryan, Arian?) were mentioned.

_P. S._ And another one as a cherry on top, taken from the comments of this blog:
The word for Christians in Russian is христиане, which sounds similar to крестьяне. In older writings those two sometimes were interchangeable. A good translation to English would be rustics. Rustici in Latin. Looks awfully close to the word rusici/rusichi which means Russian.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 31, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Bare in mind that Roman new year started during spring.



Could this be related to The Baltan, or sacred fire of the Druids? (Baltan/Baltic?)

"[it] was obtained direct from the sun, and by means of it all the hearth fires in Britain were rekindled. These fires were accompanied by feasts in honour of Bel, or Beli, the Celtic deity of light, and in Druidical days they were carried out with much pomp and ceremony. In later times the Baltan, known by its corrupted name of Bealtine, or Beltane, was associated with much superstition and revels. The most important of the Beltane fires was held on the first of May, but sometimes on the second or third of that month." From: ‘Folk-lore & Folk Stories of Wales,’ Marie Trevelyan 1909.



Sasyexa said:


> P.S. Also note the similarity between the words Cymri and Cimmerian



Cymru is the name of Wales in the Welsh language. In Latin it was Cambria - almost Sicambria. There is also a river Don (Tanais) in Wales. There's also a Cumbria region in the north west UK as well.



Silveryou said:


> Everyone knows about the eagles of Rome, but what about the dragons of Rome?



The Red Dragon is the symbol of Wales. The City of London is absolutely chocker with dragon symbolism.



Silveryou said:


> subduing and merging with the Sicambrians, who were Troyans as well, and therefore retaining the Rampant Lion as a symbol.



The British Lion is such a common symbol it's a cliché. According to The_ Historia Regum Britanniae_ complied by Geoffrey of  Monmouth in the 12th century:

"the Trojan Aeneas, who, according to the Aeneid of Virgil, settled in Italy after the Trojan War. His great-grandson Brutus is banished, and, after a period of wandering, is directed by the goddess Diana to settle on an island in the western ocean. Brutus lands at Totnes and names the island, then called Albion, "Britain" after himself. Brutus defeats the giants who are the only inhabitants of the island, and establishes his capital, Troia Nova ("New Troy"), on the banks of the Thames; later it is known as Trinovantum, and eventually renamed London." Source

Of course, nobody believes any of that these days.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 31, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Baltan/Baltic


Baltas means white in Lithuanian. Albion and albus?

_P. S._ Now that I think of it, wouldn't Austria be both south and east from England? (In-gal-land?)


----------



## Will Scarlet (Oct 31, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> (In-gal-land?)



...oh dear. This is called 'clutching at straws' where I come from. 

And so is this:

"Baltic (adj.)
1580s, "pertaining to the brackish sea between the Scandinavian peninsula and Eastern Europe," from Medieval Latin Balticus, perhaps from Lithuanian baltas "white" or Scandinavian balta "belt; strait" (in reference to its narrow entranceway). In German, it is Ostsee, literally "east sea." From 1887 as the name of a language group comprising Lithuanian, Lettish, and Old Prussian."
Source

In other words: they just don't know,.


----------



## Sasyexa (Oct 31, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> clutching at straws


Weren't you calling that clutching at pearls?)

_P.S._ Also, wouldn't this Bel deity have anything to do with Baal?


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 1, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Weren't you calling that clutching at pearls?


 ..eh?



Sasyexa said:


> _P.S._ Also, wouldn't this Bel deity have anything to do with Baal?



Highly probable imo., (unless you are referring to the demon.)

The Greek equivalent of Baal is *Zeus*.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 1, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Highly probable imo., (unless you are referring to the demon.)
> 
> The Greek equivalent of Baal is *Zeus*.


Off-topic, but there's a few interesting things:

Apparently, the name Baal and Bel is just a title, so it could apply to different gods
Baal - Wikipedia
Bel (mythology) - Wikipedia

But the biblical Baal seems to be a mistranslation of Vaal, a horned god of fertility, cattle, the underworld and the dead
Velnias – Vikipedija


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 3, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> But the biblical Baal seems to be a mistranslation of Vaal,



The 'B' & 'V' interchangeability is probably the most common of all. Even the modern Spanish people have to think twice. Anyway, it probably means nothing - with regards to this thread anyway.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> The tabernacle above the title is a mysterium of ancient Egyptian letters deriving from King Osiris.


I think this has to do with an imagined male line of the Habsburgs from Adam and Eve. One such pedigree would take Adam to Noah, then Ham, and then Mizraim, who has also been identified with Menes and Osiris, the first "King" of Egypt. The son of Osiris was Hercules Lybius, who founded a male line of Italian rulers that culminated in Dardanus, male line ancestor of King Priam of Troy. The Trojan line of King Priam descends to the Sicambrians, and then to Clovis, King of France. The male line of Clovis then goes down to Guntram the Rich, and then the eventual following Habsburg Roman Emperors to Maximilian I, who is glorified in the Arch. Sic transit gloria mundi! 


Silveryou said:


> It must be understood that the male line of the Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy


This can work through King Priam of Troy, whose son, the hero Hector, has Astyanax, whom in some versions of his story escapes death and Troy, renaming himself Francus, and becoming the ancestor of the Merovingian kings.


Silveryou said:


> The list of Roman Emperors on the left is different from the official one, there are fewer emperors than there should be, no distinction between Eastern and Western Roman Empires, no gap between the Roman Empire of old and the Holy Roman Empire, some not recognised Emperors...


Perhaps the list of Roman Emperors was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather indicative of the idea to be conveyed that the Habsburgs and Maximilian I were the inheritors of the Western, Eastern, and Holy Roman Empires.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 7, 2021)

In 2019, the 500th anniversary year of his passing, Holy Roman Emperor Maximilian I, "The Last Knight", was given a magnificent requiem at St. George's Cathedral in Wiener Neustadt, Austria, south of Vienna, marking the beginning of the "Maximilian Year" - Der letzte Ritter


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 7, 2021)

Thank you for the adding info, Fawkes. I intended to write something about how history was perceived until the 16th century and how it was subsequently changed and degraded to myth, but I think it's too much for this thread alone and a very difficult task for me.



Fawkes said:


> I think this has to do with an imagined male line of the Habsburgs from Adam and Eve.


I think it would be certainly said on Monumental inscription though. Instead the inscription (in the translation from the Metropolitan Museum of Art- https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor) says in Panel II:


> The tabernacle above the title is a mysterium of ancient Egyptian letters deriving from King Osiris. It has been interpreted word for word to describe Maximilian as a most pious, generous, mighty, powerful, and prudent sovereign; a prince of unforgettable, eternal, and honorable blood, born of a lineage blessed with all gifts nature can bestow, endowed with the knowledge of art and literature, Roman emperor and Lord of a great portion of the earth. He has by force and arms superb strength, yet with the greatest modesty subdued the most powerful king, a thing all men had thought impossible, and therefore he has prudently guarded himself from further attack.


No mention about a direct line from Adam to Maximilian.
It also says:


> In the present family tree *the lineage therefore begins with Clovis, the first Christian king of the aforementioned Merovingian and royal French dynasty*. It then continues from person to person, i.e. from father to son, from ancient times up to the Habsburg princes, and therefore the archdukes of Austria are descended down to the present with Emperor Maximilian.





Fawkes said:


> Perhaps the list of Roman Emperors was not meant to be exhaustive, but rather indicative of the idea to be conveyed that the Habsburgs and Maximilian I were the inheritors of the Western, Eastern, and Holy Roman Empires.


Yes this is 100% the message conveyed. It is strange though how no division is done between West and East and the huge amount of Emperors missing, especially considering the probable numerous superimpositions of various Emperors who came to be understood as different people in the course of time.

There are also many interesting details here and there. One of these (and once again I'm probably too lazy to write something about it) is that according to this Arch the first Christian Emperor was not Constantine but Philip the Arab, here called Philip the Christian, leaving me with a strange feeling about what Arab and/or Christian really means. It is also interesting to note that this first Christian Emperor was casually active in that role during the 1000th year anniversary of the foundation of Rome! And it is finally another strange coincidence that the Gregorian Calendar, jumping 10 days in the year 1582, subtly points to year 248 AD as the real starting point of the calendar (247 years).
Finally, (this time for real!), I would like to underline the fact that this is one of the two epochs in time when a Philip (Philip the Arab - Wikipedia) and an Alexander (Severus Alexander - Wikipedia) acted in the same period. The other couple being, in inverted order, Alexander the Great (Alexander the Great - Wikipedia) and Philip II (Philip II of Macedon - Wikipedia).

This is obviously for those who like me believe there's something wrong with our history!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 7, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> No mention about a direct line from Adam to Maximilian.


That would not come "officially" until 1536, in the reign of his grandson Charles V, who was depicted as a boy on that 1515 Arch of his grandfather Maximilian- "For example, in the 16th century, Pope Alessandro Farnese (Paul III), brother of Giulia Farnese, the mistress of Pope Roderic Borja (Alexander VI), and founding pope of the Society of Jesus, gave Emperor Charles V a genealogical tree (made officially in 1536) of Prince Philip (future King Philip II), making him a direct descendant of Osiris, understood as the grandson of Noah and father of Horus, also called Egyptian Hercules." El origen inédito del Cristianismo oficial, un matrimonio y/o un proyecto indio


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 7, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> El origen inédito del Cristianismo oficial, un matrimonio y/o un proyecto indio


I remember reading it some years ago. Wasn't there an English version? I cannot find it so I probably translated it!



Fawkes said:


> That would not come "officially" until 1536, in the reign of his grandson Charles V, who was depicted as a boy on that 1515 Arch of his grandfather Maximilian


In any case there is in fact a glimpse of that story on the inscription itself that I didn't notice. In panel I (https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor) it says:


> Although there are many heathen kings in the line of descendants, from father to son, these are not pictured because they were neither baptized nor did they believe in the Christian faith. Their names will be given in another book.


I would be curious to look at that book. Do you have any idea how is it called? And where to look for it?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I would be curious to look at that book. Do you have any idea how is it called? And where to look for it?


Actually, I got that information from "Hellboy", on the #4 post at the
The secret of the twins Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl​thread here.

The Habsburgs, from what I am making out in that article so far, appear to be among the deceivers of the world, along with the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits. The *Komnenos/Comnenus*; family are mentioned also, as ancestors of European royalty, and, not to sidetrack this thread, but Miles Mathis mentions them as of Jewish/Phoenician heritage.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Actually, I got that information from "Hellboy", on the #4 post at the
> The secret of the twins Quetzalcoatl and Xolotl​thread here.


Ah  ok but I was talking about Johannes Stabius's book referred to in the Monumental Inscription on the Arch!


> Although there are many heathen kings in the line of descendants, from father to son, these are not pictured because they were neither baptized nor did they believe in the Christian faith. Their names will be given in another *book*.



I have already known Marful's work for some years since a link to his website was provided on Fomenko's chronologia.org. I wondered if I read that article by translation or because there was an English version that I cannot find anymore. But it's a totally different issue from the one about Stabius book.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Ah  ok but I was talking about Johannes Stabius's book referred to in the Monumental Inscription on the Arch!


 I get it now! However, if I am following you correctly this time, are you sure Stabius wrote an ancient genealogy "book", I thought he was a mapmaker.

I cobbled this royal pedigree together from different sources, to give you an idea of what it may have contained for Philip-

*Genealogy of Philip II of Spain (16th century)*: 1. God: 2. Adam: 3. Seth: 4. Henos: 5. Cainan: 6. Malaleel: 7. Iared: 8. Henoch: 9. Mathusalem: 10. Lamech: 11. Noe: 12. Ham: 13. Mizraim (Osiris, Menes): 14. Hercules Lybius (Horus): 15. Thusco: 16. Altheo: 17. Blascon: 18. Cambo Blascon: 19. Dardano: 20. Ericthonio: 21. Troe: 22. Iilo: 23. Loomedonte: 24. Priamo: 25. Heleno: 26. Genger: 27. Franco: 28. Esdron: 29. Gelio: 30. Rasabiliano: 31. Plaserio: 32. Plesron: 33. Eliacor: 36. Gaberiano: 35. Plaserio: 36. Antenor: 37. Priamo: 38. Heleno: 39. Plesron: 40. Basabiliano: 41. Alexandre: 42. Priamo: 43. Getmalor: 44. Almadion: 45. Diluglio: 16. Heleno: 47. Plaserio: 48. Diluglio: 40. Marcomiro: 50. Priamo: 51. Heleno: 52. Antenor: 53. Marcomiro: 54. Antenor: 55. Priamo: 56. Heleno: 57. Diocles: 58. Basano: 59. Clodomiro: 60, Nicanor: 61. Marcomiro: 62. Clodio: 63. Antenor: 64. Clodomiro: 65. Merocado: 66. Casandre: 67. Antario: 68. Franco: 69. Clogion: 70. Marcomiro: 71. Clodomiro: 72. Antenor: 73. Paterio: 74. Richimero: 75. Odemara: 76. Marcomiro: 77. Clodomiro: 78. Faraberto: 79. Sunon: 80. Hilderico: 81. Baltero: 82. Clodio: 83. Valter: 84. Dagoverto: 85. Clogion: 86. Genebaldo: 87. Dagoverto: 88. Clodion: 89. Marcomiro: 90. Faramundo: 91. Clodion: his son, 92. Merobeo: 93. Childerico: 94. Clodoreo: 95. Clotario (or Olotario): 96. Sigisberto: 97. Thoeberto: 98. Bebo: 99. Roperto: 100. Amprinto: 101. Gontramo: 102. Luthardo: 103. Betgon: 104. Rapoto: 105. Berengario: 106. Othon: 107. Vernero: 108. Alberto Elrico: 109. Alberto, 2: 110. Rodulpho: 111. Alberto, 3: 112. Alberto Elsabio: 113. Leopoldo: 114. Ernosto: 115. Federico: 116. Maximiliano: 117. Don Philipe, 1:118. D. Charolus: 119. D. Philipe, 2


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> The Habsburgs, from what I am making out in that article so far, appear to be among the deceivers of the world, along with the Roman Catholic Church and the Jesuits. The *Komnenos/Comnenus*; family are mentioned also, as ancestors of European royalty, and, not to sidetrack this thread, but Miles Mathis mentions them as of Jewish/Phoenician heritage.


Don't worry about sidetracking, we are just talking. I personally don't believe a single word coming out of Miles Davis, but I'm not going to mention why here, since I've already done it elsewhere. The Jewish/Phoenician thing seems ridiculous to me since it spawns from multiple modern misconceptions and prejudices. Connecting it to the recentist movement and Tartaria seems to me even more ridiculous, frankly.
As for Marfull's reconstruction I have to say that I am not a fan. He is too politicised and he has an actual interest in the independence of Catalonia (whether good or bad, I don't know). So he manages to find a manuscript which confirms everything he believes to be true... Great! But it is nonetheless interesting in his observations, even though I don't really understand how he came up with the 185 yers thing.

By the way, I am a disciple of Fomenko but I am really not convinces about his conclusions too.

When it comes to the Habsburgs the line between them and the Church is very thin. I wrote here (Joseph Justus Scaliger according to Jacob Duellman) some things that many people don't consider, probably blinded by the irrational 'Church/Romans/Jesuits bad' theme. Being Italian I could be accused of being an heretic catholic fan, but believe me if I say that I'm certainly not a fan of Rome, and even if catholic by tradition (like many people around the world) I am certainly not supporting a World Catholic Caliphate, which is something really far from sight anyway in our day and age.



Fawkes said:


> are you sure Stabius wrote an ancient genealogy "book", I thought he was a mapmaker.


he was according to wikipedia. But he also was the court historian (antiquarian) of Maximilian.
Edit: he himself talks about that book in the inscription at the end of Panel I (https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor):


> Although there are many heathen kings in the line of descendants, from father to son, these are not pictured because they were neither baptized nor did they believe in the Christian faith. *Their names will be given in another book.*





Fawkes said:


> *Genealogy of Philip II of Spain (16th century)*: 1. God: 2. Adam: 3. Seth: 4. Henos: 5. Cainan: 6. Malaleel: 7. Iared: 8. Henoch: 9. Mathusalem: 10. Lamech: 11. Noe: 12. Ham: 13. Mizraim (Osiris, Menes): 14. Hercules Lybius (Horus): 15. Thusco: 16. Altheo: 17. Blascon: 18. Cambo Blascon: 19. Dardano: 20. Ericthonio: 21. Troe: 22. Iilo: 23. Loomedonte: 24. Priamo: 25. Heleno: 26. Genger: 27. Franco: 28. Esdron: 29. Gelio: 30. Rasabiliano: 31. Plaserio: 32. Plesron: 33. Eliacor: 36. Gaberiano: 35. Plaserio: 36. Antenor: 37. Priamo: 38. Heleno: 39. Plesron: 40. Basabiliano: 41. Alexandre: 42. Priamo: 43. Getmalor: 44. Almadion: 45. Diluglio: 16. Heleno: 47. Plaserio: 48. Diluglio: 40. Marcomiro: 50. Priamo: 51. Heleno: 52. Antenor: 53. Marcomiro: 54. Antenor: 55. Priamo: 56. Heleno: 57. Diocles: 58. Basano: 59. Clodomiro: 60, Nicanor: 61. Marcomiro: 62. Clodio: 63. Antenor: 64. Clodomiro: 65. Merocado: 66. Casandre: 67. Antario: 68. Franco: 69. Clogion: 70. Marcomiro: 71. Clodomiro: 72. Antenor: 73. Paterio: 74. Richimero: 75. Odemara: 76. Marcomiro: 77. Clodomiro: 78. Faraberto: 79. Sunon: 80. Hilderico: 81. Baltero: 82. Clodio: 83. Valter: 84. Dagoverto: 85. Clogion: 86. Genebaldo: 87. Dagoverto: 88. Clodion: 89. Marcomiro: 90. Faramundo: 91. Clodion: his son, 92. Merobeo: 93. Childerico: 94. Clodoreo: 95. Clotario (or Olotario): 96. Sigisberto: 97. Thoeberto: 98. Bebo: 99. Roperto: 100. Amprinto: 101. Gontramo: 102. Luthardo: 103. Betgon: 104. Rapoto: 105. Berengario: 106. Othon: 107. Vernero: 108. Alberto Elrico: 109. Alberto, 2: 110. Rodulpho: 111. Alberto, 3: 112. Alberto Elsabio: 113. Leopoldo: 114. Ernosto: 115. Federico: 116. Maximiliano: 117. Don Philipe, 1:118. D. Charolus: 119. D. Philipe, 2


I cannot find the list in the link you provided... oh sorry, you created the list from various sources! I would like to see an original one though.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Don't worry about sidetracking, we are just talking. I personally don't believe a single word coming out of Miles Davis, but I'm not going to mention why here, since I've already done it elsewhere. The Jewish/Phoenician thing seems ridiculous to me since it spawns from multiple modern misconceptions and prejudices. Connecting it to the recentist movement and Tartaria seems to me even more ridiculous, frankly.
> As for Marfull's reconstruction I have to say that I am not a fan. He is too politicised and he has an actual interest in the independence of Catalonia (whether good or bad, I don't know). So he manages to find a manuscript which confirms everything he believes to be true... Great! But it is nonetheless interesting in his observations, even though I don't really understand how he came up with the 185 yers thing.
> 
> By the way, I am a disciple of Fomenko but I am really not convinces about his conclusions too.
> ...


I found the original list years ago, but it started off with "Adam", not "God", if I remember correctly. Unfortunately I did not bookmark it.
I see a connection here - 

"Habsburg (Rudolph IV - Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria) claimed the P. Maius to be issued by Julius Caesar and Nero" 1358 or 1359

"The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality." 1515


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I see a connection here -
> 
> "Habsburg (Rudolph IV - Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria) claimed the P. Maius to be issued by Julius Caesar and Nero" 1358 or 1359
> 
> "The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality." 1515


Exactly. If we follow Fomenko's reasonings (whether true or not), Caesar and Nero lived between the 10th and 11th century AD, Nero's alias being Henry V the Black. In that period the Normans (almost the anagram of Romans) were active doing the same things (conquest of Britain, crusade in Jerusalem, establishing kingdoms on 'greek' territory...) that Romans did during the beginning of the Empire/late Republic. And the Normans started from France, which is located in the West in respect to the Eastern Mark (Austria). The name Austria is said to be originated during the Carolingian Holy Roman Empire, not so far in time, and Charlemagne was at the centre of many medieval tales describing him as a crusader.
This is the table of the comparison between the Roman Empire (called 'Second' here) and the Holy one. Taken from Marfull's website.



EDIT: don't ask me why he calls Henry V 'the Black'!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Exactly. If we follow Fomenko's reasonings (whether true or not), Caesar and Nero lived between the 10th and 11th century AD, Nero's alias being Henry V the Black. In that period the Normans (almost the anagram of Romans) were active doing the same things (conquest of Britain, crusade in Jerusalem, establishing kingdoms on 'greek' territory...) that Romans did during the beginning of the Empire/late Republic. And the Normans started from France, which is located in the West in respect to the Eastern Mark (Austria). The name Austria is said to be originated during the Carolingian Holy Roman Empire, not so far in time, and Charlemagne was at the centre of many medieval tales describing him as a crusader.
> This is the table of the comparison between the Roman Empire (called 'Second' here) and the Holy one. Taken from Marfull's website.
> View attachment 13563​EDIT: don't ask me why he calls Henry V 'the Black'!


So after this the Habsburgs rule, starting with Rudolf I, (1273-1291), 18 years = the combined reigning Roman Emperors from Maximinus Thrax to Aemilian (235-253). ???


"When Count Rudolf von Habsburg (1218-1291) was elected Holy Roman Roman Emperor in 1273 the Habsburg family seems to have had no genealogical tradition about their origins. If they did have, it has since been lost.

Rudolf was avidly interested in genealogy. Very soon after he was elected he circulated the idea the Habsburgs were descendants of the Colonna family. The Colonna are an Italian noble family, said to be a branch of the Counts of Tusculum, who in turn were supposed to be descended from the Roman _gens Julia_, the family of Julius Caesar."

So with this new chronology, the Habsburg descent from Julius Caesar and his family is entirely possible, and not just political propaganda? For his part, Julius Caesar said that HE was descended from the Trojans also! So the Arch of Maximilian may be right on both counts.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> So after this the Habsburgs rule, starting with Rudolf I, (1273-1291), 18 years = the combined reigning Roman Emperors from Maximinus Thrax to Aemilian (235-253). ???


I have the same question! Fomenko says that even this parallelism is not enough and shows how Rudolf I is Henry I the Fowler (or Conrad I), but then according to his graph Maximilian I becomes Henry V, that same Emperor parallel to Nero in the previous graph. Therefore Maximilian could not talk about Nero as a different person in his own Arch! That would be extremely stupid!
This is why it's difficult for me to entirely follow his reconstruction, since it seems strained to me, as if he is trying to fit everything in the official and accepted timeline of Russian history.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> but then according to his graph Maximilian I becomes Henry V, that same Emperor parallel to Nero in the previous graph. Therefore Maximilian could not talk about Nero as a different person in his own Arch! That would be extremely stupid!


"Habsburg (Rudolph IV - Rudolf IV, Duke of Austria) claimed the P. Maius to be issued by Julius Caesar and Nero" 1358 or 1359

"The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality." 1515"

That wasn't Maximilian himself talking about Nero, was it, but someone Maximilian hired to? Notice that Nero is not among the Roman Emperors depicted in the Arch of Maximilian either. Therefore, if any of this timeline is true, Rudolf IV DID fake the part in the "Privilegium Maius" about Nero, but not necessarily about Julius Caesar. ???

PS- Are we not ASSUMING that the Roman Emperor Nero is meant in all of these cases with Julius Caesar? Roman Emperors Tiberius and Claudius were also called "Nero", it was a common name among one branch of the Claudians. Claudia gens - Wikipedia


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> So with this new chronology, the Habsburg descent from Julius Caesar and his family is entirely possible, and not just political propaganda? For his part, Julius Caesar said that HE was descended from the Trojans also! So the Arch of Maximilian may be right on both counts.


But the Arch doesn't say he descended from Caesar! Where did you take the info about Rudolf and the Colonna thing?


Fawkes said:


> That wasn't Maximilian himself talking about Nero, was it, but someone Maximilian hired to? Notice that Nero is not among the Roman Emperors depicted in the Arch of Maximilian either. Therefore, if any of this timeline is true, Rudolf IV DID fake the part in the "Privilegium Maius" about Nero, but not necessarily about Julius Caesar. ???


It was certainly his historian to compile the inscription on the Arch, but I bet it had to be approved by Maximilian himself. It is true that Nero is nowhere on the Arch itself but it is cited in the inscription and his absence can be justified by his persecution of 'Christians'.
Bare in mind that the faking of the PMa regarded Rudolf's ammission between the Prince-electors from which he was excluded. This PMa was said to be a fake by Petrarch, who was in service to the Colonna family and the first to conceive the concept of 'dark ages' (Dark Ages (historiography) - Wikipedia). So he and those for whom he worked are the primeìry suspects when speaking about a revision of history, since he was the first one saying that the middle-ages (a term invented by another Italian by the name of Flavio Biondo, one of the first archeologists (!!!) - Flavio Biondo - Wikipedia), were a period of great regression after the splendid epoch of Italian Rome. Do you see the conflict of interest (and identity issues)? So Petrarch being the one saying the PMa was a fake is really crigy to me. And why it was needed to confirm it was a fake in the 19th century by Wilhelm Wattenbach (Wilhelm Wattenbach - Wikipedia), member of the directing body of the _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_, a series of 'primary sources' study of Northwestern and Central European history from the end of the Roman Empire to 1500? Which is exactly the period described by Petrarch and Biondo as the 'dark middle ages'. Strange, isn't it?
And why Petrarch, exactly like many other humanists after him, had to go to Germany to find out the manuscripts of Cicero? On the Italian wiki they say he consulted the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana (Vatican Library - Wikipedia).... FAKE NEWS!!! It didn't yet exist in the 14th century, when Petrarch lived!

So you will not have answers by me... just a ton of questions 



Fawkes said:


> Roman Emperors Tiberius and Claudius were also called "Nero", it was a common name among one branch of the Claudians.


Yes Fomenko says it in his books and I think it's probable that they were one and the same, or at least that some actions attributed to one could be assigned to others.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> But the Arch doesn't say he descended from Caesar! Where did you take the info about Rudolf and the Colonna thing?


Colonna​When Count Rudolf von Habsburg (1218-1291) was elected Holy Roman Roman Emperor in 1273 the Habsburg family seems to have had no genealogical tradition about their origins. If they did have, it has since been lost.

Rudolf was avidly interested in genealogy. Very soon after he was elected he circulated the idea the Habsburgs were descendants of the Colonna family. The Colonna are an Italian noble family, said to be a branch of the Counts of Tusculum, who in turn were supposed to be descended from the Roman _gens Julia_, the family of Julius Caesar. So, at a stroke, a formerly obscure Swiss family was linked to ancient Rome. Not surprisingly, Rudolf's new imperial dynasty also gained apparent legitimacy.

The idea that the Habsburgs were descended from the family of Julius Caesar gave them an opening to tag onto an older bit of political propaganda. Caesar himself claimed to be a descendant of the Trojan hero Aeneas, who was the son of a Trojan prince Anchises and the goddess Venus (Greek: Aphrodite), according to Homer's _Iliad_. Virgil's _Aeneid_ tells the story of how Aeneas gathered the Trojan survivors along with the statues of the household gods of Troy, and eventually settled in Italy where he became the ancestor of Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, and his companions became the ancestors of the Romans.

So, this genealogy made the Habsburgs not only the heirs of Rome but also the heirs of the Trojans and the founders of Rome.


*Chronik der 95 Herrschaften (Chronicle of 95 Seigneurs) by Leopold of Vienna (Leopold Stainreuter) (late 14th century).* A compilation of the 95 rulers of Austria from Noah down to the present. In 1453 Frederick III used this compilation to have a memorial created in St. George’s church in the castle at Wiener Neustadt. The memorial shows 107 coats of arms, most of them the imaginary arms of fictitious Austrian rulers from Noah down to himself. Frederick had himself portrayed in the central field as ruler of the Austrian domains.
Among these Fomenko name matching games, are only Roman Emperors of different time periods matched, or can contemporary royalty be included?  For example- Maximilian I (1459-1519) with Henry Tudor, later King Henry VII of England (1457-1509)?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Among these Fomenko name matching games, are only Roman Emperors of different time periods matched, or can contemporary royalty be included? For example- Maximilian I (1459-1519) with Henry Tudor, later King Henry VII of England (1457-1509)?


He has done a comparison between English Kings and the 'Byzantine' Emperors. By the way, I was interested in the website from which you took the info about the Colonna! Here the graph.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Thank You, here are various Habsburg genealogies that I used to cobble together the one that I showed you. The one I found years ago for Philip II, and didn't bookmark, distinctly had the descent from Ham/Osiris/Hercules Lybius, not the modified O'Hart one shown here. 
Fictitious Habsburg Genealogies genealogy project


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Thank You, here are various Habsburg genealogies that I used to cobble together the one that I showed you. The one I found years ago for Philip II, and didn't bookmark, distinctly had the descent from Ham/Osiris/Hercules Lybius, not the modified O'Hart one shown here.
> Fictitious Habsburg Genealogies genealogy project


Perfect, thanks. It is really incredible to see how Rudolf claimed to be descendant of the Colonna (if it's true) and then the same Rudolf being accused of forgery by the guy in the service of those same Colonna (Petrarch).
I see a constant effort by historians trying to bring down the Habsburgs. Everything related to them is always fake or even worse. Isn't it because they were the last Roman Emperors brought down by the ambiguous French Revolution(s) which paved the way for our modern 'industrial' era (and 'digital' in few years)? It doesn't sound right to me and I think it has to do with legitimacy problems and the struggle for power won by their enemies.... maybe!

Also, it's a good website but I don't see primary sources. The only source is apparently this one:

Alphons Lhotsky, _Das Haus Habsburg_ (1971)
Who controls the controllers? He was involved in the bringing down of the PMa and was part of the _Monumenta Germaniae Historica,_ following the path of Petrarch (Alfons Lhotsky – Wikipedia).


----------



## Seeker (Nov 8, 2021)

Hello there - I dont know if this would be of any interest to you - but I cross-referenced this thread in another topic, as per below.

SH Archive - 1,000 extra years of phantom time solved? America was not discovered in 1492?

I don't know if this may or may not be in any way relevant to your discussions of chronology, here - but it may be of interest.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Seeker said:


> I don't know if this may or may not be in any way relevant to your discussions of chronology, here - but it may be of interest.


Yes it is relevant. If the book _A Chronicle of All the Noble Emperours of the Romaines_ was printed in the year 1571 and the Maximilian named in the introduction is the first (the author is specific about the 'number' of Emperors of the past but he apparently forgets to say that he worked for the Maximilian number 2 !!!), then a certain map talking about the discovery of America in 1592 becomes a little bit more consistent (_Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula_).





​So I'm now even more intrigued to know if on this Arch it is somewhere related the discovery of America...

*Is this old German language? Please, can someone translate?*


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Please, can someone translate?



Calling all old Germans... come in please...

Just daydreaming, but could there be any relation between Colonna and Colón - as in Cristobal Colón, the Colon- iser of America?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 8, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Just daydreaming, but could there be any relation between Colonna and Colón - as in Cristobal Colón, the Colon- iser of America?


In Italy we call him Colombo and think this is his original surname, mostly from Lombardy and the surrounding regions and therefore even Genoa.
But I've read multiple things about him being a Jew (another one) and in any case being Spanish (whatever that means when talking about that time period) or Portuguese (same).
It seems to me everyone wants to be part of that glory... and money! I propose a Tartarian origin. What do you think?


----------



## Blackdiamond (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Yes it is relevant. If the book _A Chronicle of All the Noble Emperours of the Romaines_ was printed in the year 1571 and the Maximilian named in the introduction is the first (the author is specific about the 'number' of Emperors of the past but he apparently forgets to say that he worked for the Maximilian number 2 !!!), then a certain map talking about the discovery of America in 1592 becomes a little bit more consistent (_Nova Totius Terrarum Orbis geographica ac hydrographica tabula_).
> View attachment 13574
> View attachment 13573​So I'm now even more intrigued to know if on this Arch it is somewhere related the discovery of America...
> 
> *Is this old German language? Please, can someone translate?*


Published in 1558 by the Vatican. When the author already died. And around the time when Gustav vasa brought the bible very unpeacefully to finland. 
It lists "All" the "kings of sweden" to its precent day. Starting with Gog.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 8, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It is really incredible to see how Rudolf claimed to be descendant of the Colonna (if it's true)


From http://web.archive.org/web/20120211233730/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps.htm

"As early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.

descent from the Colonna

*01. Zottone of the "Forum Iulii", 1st Duke of Benevento 571-594
02. Grasulfo I, Duke of Friuli 581-589, bro of Gisulfo I, Duke of Friuli 569-581
03. Gisulfo II, Duke of Friuli 589-610, bro of Grasulfo II
04. Grimoaldo I, Duke of Friuli 647-662; Lombard-King 661-671, bro of Rodoaldo, Duke of Benevento
05. Romoaldo I, Duke of Benevento, bro of Garibaldo, Lombard-King 671-674
06. Gregorio, Count Comis, bro of Grimoaldo II, Duke of Benevento, and Gisulfo III, Duke of Fruili
07. Tolomeo I, Count Comis
08. Tolemeo II, Count Comis
09. Theodatus
10. Alberic, bro of Hadrian I, Pope 772-795
11. Leudfrido, bro of Alberic I, Count of Camerino (male line Counts of Tuscany and Colonna family ancestor}, and Benedict [father        of Agapitus, aka Hadrian III, Pope 884-5]
12. Hunroch
13? Guntram "The Rich", founder of the House of Habsburg (d973)*​
The Habsburg heir is among the claimants to Europe's imperial throne. Since the Roman/Byzantine Empire never developed a system of succession all of the claimants are equally eligible to the "Throne of Europe", that is, "Charlemagne's Throne", which still may be seen in Aachen, Germany, which was Charlemagne's main residence and capital-city. The imperial claims of the Habsburg heir along with the other claimants may very well come into play in the future. For, the present "European Union", which is a confederation of independent nation-states, can only be converted into a federation of united-states by the revival of the imperial system in Europe which people tend to forget is a part of the heritage of "western civilization"."


Fawkes said:


> From http://web.archive.org/web/20120211233730/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps.htm
> 
> "As early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.
> 
> ...


Though not shown here, the Caesars claimed to be descended from Aeneas the Trojan, whose ancestor was Dardanus, and thus on back to Hercules Lybius, Osiris/Mizraim/Menes, Noah, and Adam.

Obviously we have a 637 year gap in time here from Zottone (d. 594) and the assassination of Julius Caesar (44 BC). The Habsburg founder Guntram the Rich would be contemporary with Otto I, whom the Fomenko chart has aligned with Augustus, adopted son of Julius Caesar. Thus, when Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf I (d. 1291) produced this first known genealogy about his Habsburg ancestors, Guntram (d. 973) was living only three centuries before him, and Julius Caesar also, going by Fomenko. In this scenario, Julius Caesar was old enough to be Guntram's father, so Guntram being the descendant of cousin Sextus Caesar and all of those Dukes and Counts from Zottone is only "filler", and Guntram could actually be the son of Julius Caesar, with a male line down to Rudolf???


Fawkes said:


> From http://web.archive.org/web/20120211233730/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps.htm
> 
> "As early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.
> 
> ...





Fawkes said:


> From http://web.archive.org/web/20120211233730/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps.htm
> 
> "As early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.
> 
> ...


I don't know if Fomenko agrees with this, but the father of Otto I/Augustus Caesar was Henry the Fowler, who ruled for 17 years (919-936). Julius Caesar became Governor of Hispania Ulterior in 61 BC, and was later first hailed as "Imperator" by his soldiers there, ruling in one way or another after that until 44 BC, 17 years.


Fawkes said:


> From http://web.archive.org/web/20120211233730/http://www.angelfire.com/ego/et_deo/hapsburgs.wps.htm
> 
> "As early as the 14th century the Habsburg genealogists attempted to trace their origins as descendants of Italy's Colonna Family, the Counts of Tuscany, who traced their descent in the male-line from the Roman gens "Forum Iulii", which descended in the male-line from Julius Caesar's cousin, Sextus Caesar.
> 
> ...


Ah, so Rudolf I, according to Fomenko, IS Henry the Fowler, and if Henry the Fowler is Julius Caesar, then Rudolf was actually the "Julius Caesar" founder of his own Habsburg dynasty, and so his proposed "Julius Caesar" ancestral male line genealogy of the Habsburgs would be valid! As the first Habsburg Roman Emperor, he is really the first Habsburg that "counts" in their genealogy. "Guntram the Rich" and the Habsburg Counts before Emperor Rudolf don't really matter anyway. There just might be some method in this madness!


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 9, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> For, the present "European Union", which is a confederation of *independent *nation-states, can only be converted into a federation of united-states by the revival of the imperial system in Europe which people tend to forget is a part of the heritage of "western civilization".


Independent!!! Good joke! A very politicised comment coming from a supposedly independent 'reasearcher' of someone else's genealogy. And still in his commentary he cannot provide a truthful description of the genealogy provided in this Arch! I wonder what primary sources he consulted and why people uncritically accept everything without seeing the obvious propaganda behind (not talking about you Fawkes, obviously). I am starting to look like a royalist now though.


Fawkes said:


> Though not shown here, the Caesars claimed to be descended from Aeneas the Trojan, whose ancestor was Dardanus, and thus on back to Hercules Lybius, Osiris/Mizraim/Menes, Noah, and Adam.


I would like to discuss this peculiar genealogy here too, but not through the words and mindset of an academic, this David Hughes who doesn't even provide the sources from which he compiled his lists with the following propaganda! Nothing against you, Fawkes, I appreciate the sources you are providing, but they are of an inferior quality since they are not primary. If it happens to you to find those primary sources, let me (us) know, since I bet they would be way more interesting. The problem is that when you look at the primary sources you frequently find out that they were _re-interpreted_ by historians to fit their own mindset, which they learned in schools, academia, TV... all institutions/media owned by someone who has all the interest to distort history in their favour. This is why this thread is about a primary source.


Fawkes said:


> I don't know if Fomenko agrees with this, but the father of Otto I/Augustus Caesar was Henry the Fowler, who ruled for 17 years (919-936). Julius Caesar became Governor of Hispania Ulterior in 61 BC, and was later first hailed as "Imperator" by his soldiers there, ruling in one way or another after that until 44 BC, 17 years.





Fawkes said:


> Ah, so Rudolf I, according to Fomenko, IS Henry the Fowler, and if Henry the Fowler is Julius Caesar, then Rudolf was actually the "Julius Caesar" founder of his own Habsburg dynasty, and so his proposed "Julius Caesar" ancestral male line genealogy of the Habsburgs would be valid! As the first Habsburg Roman Emperor, he is really the first Habsburg that "counts" in their genealogy. "Guntram the Rich" and the Habsburg Counts before Emperor Rudolf don't really matter anyway. There just might be some method in this madness!


Bare in mind that Fomenko is not a historian, he is a mathematician. So he has developed new ways to look at history through maths. His method shows the fallacies of our modern History, which claims to be a 'science', while in reality being just a solid method to destroy the past to create a new one. When it comes to his reconstruction he shows, in my opinion, his human side. How can he be objective when history is directly related with identity? All the more true knowing he is a member of Russian academia paid by the state.
But he has nonetheless broken in some way the veil, so to say. When it comes to a reconstruction I personally think that other recentists with a history background are probably more useful to us. I suggest you this website with Heinsohn's research (Q-Mag.org).
In my opinion trying to transform Henry the Fowler in Julius Caesar is a waste of time, especially when we have to deal with informations coming from wiki or authors like David Hughes who don't give us the primary sources and in any case there's no way to consult those sources without being an academician with the access to those manuscripts. Who was Henry the Fowler? What primary sources talk about him? The story of his life is the product of historians' 'research' or it's been provided by some real witness? I don't have the answer!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 9, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> In Italy we call him Colombo



Yes, he joined the forum recently.



Silveryou said:


> But I've read multiple things about him



Indeed, he is one big mystery. I did some digging a while ago, but never finished it. I don't think he was Jewish, but Judeo-Christian if that's even a thing. He was certainly financed and accompanied by Jews. Anyway, it's irrelevant to this thread so 



Silveryou said:


> I propose a Tartarian origin. What do you think?



Could be.   Wherever he came from he was certainly a walking reset for millions of people.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 9, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> Yes, he joined the forum recently.





Will Scarlet said:


> Indeed, he is one big mystery. I did some digging a while ago, but never finished it. I don't think he was Jewish, but Judeo-Christian if that's even a thing. He was certainly financed and accompanied by Jews. Anyway, it's irrelevant to this thread so


There are alternative views from Italian researchers which I bet no one knows here. And would probably be barely tolerated by some, imo-lol.


----------



## Blackdiamond (Nov 9, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> There are alternative views from Italian researchers which I bet no one knows here. And would probably be barely tolerated by some, imo-lol.


what alternative views do they have?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 9, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Nothing against you, Fawkes


No offense taken, I do assure you. I am presenting everything that I can find for you, primary sources or not, just so you may see it and give your own opinion, as I do respect your dedication towards finding the truth. You are not alone in criticizing David Hughes, I know that for sure! Perhaps this was a bad idea on my part, and is a waste of time for you. My summary of the Arch of Glory for Maximilian I is that it is Habsburg PROPAGANDA, not Habsburg HISTORY. However, I still find it very interesting for the kernels of truth it may contain, and I personally have time to "waste" on it, so your thread is very enjoyable to me. As far as a much older source for the line of Noah, Osiris, and Hercules Lybius to Dardanus of Troy, try this if you like, some of it may not be an ancient fake -   Travels of Noah into Europe
You are right about the Arch, it only goes generation by generation to Maximilian starting with Clovis, but it does indicate that Clovis ultimately had ancient Trojan ancestry, as shown on the literal family "tree".


Will Scarlet said:


> Could be.  Wherever he came from he was certainly a walking reset for millions of people.


A Byzantine Prince? Christophoros Columbus: A Byzantine Prince?


Silveryou said:


> But the Arch doesn't say he descended from Caesar


According to author and historian Andrew Wheatcroft Wheatcroft, Andrew 1944- | Encyclopedia.com in his book "_The Habsburgs: Embodying Empire,_ Viking (New York, NY), 1995", all of those Roman Emperors from Julius Caesar to the Habsburg Rudolf I, were intended to represent the real (and imagined) ancestors of Maximilian I on his Arch of Glory. No, it didn't say it, this was mainly meant to be visual propaganda to glorify the Habsburgs. Besides, how many people could read back in those days anyway? The primary purpose of this Arch was to be optically awesome to the subjects of Maximilian, and it most certainly was!
Here are two speculations, about the origin of the Habsburgs, from both extremes. One is from the direct male line of Holy Roman Emperor Charlemagne, the other as unnamed peasant farmers who rose from "rags to riches". The latter may be their most likely origins. 

The Origin of the House of Hapsburg: An Alternate Theory

Dagobert’s Revenge Magazine Website


Fawkes said:


> No offense taken, I do assure you. I am presenting everything that I can find for you, primary sources or not, just so you may see it and give your own opinion, as I do respect your dedication towards finding the truth. You are not alone in criticizing David Hughes, I know that for sure! Perhaps this was a bad idea on my part, and is a waste of time for you. My summary of the Arch of Glory for Maximilian I is that it is Habsburg PROPAGANDA, not Habsburg HISTORY. However, I still find it very interesting for the kernels of truth it may contain, and I personally have time to "waste" on it, so your thread is very enjoyable to me. As far as a much older source for the line of Noah, Osiris, and Hercules Lybius to Dardanus of Troy, try this if you like, some of it may not be an ancient fake -   Travels of Noah into Europe
> You are right about the Arch, it only goes generation by generation to Maximilian starting with Clovis, but it does indicate that Clovis ultimately had ancient Trojan ancestry, as shown on the literal family "tree".
> 
> A Byzantine Prince? Christophoros Columbus: A Byzantine Prince?
> ...


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 10, 2021)

In my younger days I used to take the family on visits to stately homes in the UK. We would often come across elaborately decorated artworks of family trees showing how the Lord or Duke or Sir whoever it might have been, was directly descended from King Arthur via the most ridiculous ancestral connections you could imagine. It was something these aristocratic types did to satisfy their egos. Perhaps the Arch was something similar?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 10, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> It was something these aristocratic types did to satisfy their egos. Perhaps the Arch was something similar?


On a much larger scale, you may be right. The Memorial of Maximilian also included a statue of King Arthur as his ancestor. Apparently the ambition of Maximilian knew no bounds. Not only did Maximilian get Pope Julius II (who himself chose his papal name in honor of Julius Caesar) to declare him Emperor elect, without having to be crowned in Rome (travel in hostile Italy was dangerous for him), he even wanted to take his place as Pope when Julius became seriously ill, and thus be Emperor and Pope simultaneously!  Both Maximilian and his father, the Roman Emperor Frederick III, had many illustrious predecessors created for them, with themselves being the focal centerpiece. Maximilian, on his Triumphal Arch, and based upon a remark that Christopher Columbus made in a letter, also considered himself to be the ruler of America. Early America and the Habsburg Dynasty 

Intriguingly enough, Maximilian was elected King of the Romans on Feb. 16, 1486, and two days later Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was born in Mayapur in the town of Nadia, West Bengal, India, just after sunset. He is regarded as an incarnation, or avatar, of Lord Krishna, and later comes to inaugurate the sankirtana movement, or the CHANTING OF THE HOLY NAMES OF THE LORD (my emphasis). According to "The Apocalypse as seen by Astronomy", co-authored by Fomenko, the biblical text of the Apocalypse contains a horoscope that dates back to October 1, 1486, 6 years before Columbus "discovered" America, in 1492, considered to be a significant year in the history of the West, Europe, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Spain, and the New World, among others, because of the number of significant events to have taken place during it. Some of the events which propelled the year into Western consciousness, include the completion of the Reconquista of Spain, Europe's discovery of the New World, and the expulsion of Jews from Spain. 1492 - Wikipedia 

For Maximilian, by 1492, in the Low Countries, rebellions were completely suppressed. Maximilian revoked the Great Privilege and established a strong ducal monarchy undisturbed by particularism. Also in 1492, with a stable internal situation, he was able to reconquer and keep Franche Comté and Arras on the pretext that the French had repudiated his daughter. The next year, 1493, seven years after the Apocalypse horoscope (approximate Tribulation length), Maximilian succeeds his father Frederick III and becomes defacto leader of the Holy Roman Empire.

Does all of this tie together with the ego and glorification of Maximilian and the Habsburgs, or are they just coincidences ???
​


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 10, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> My summary of the Arch of Glory for Maximilian I is that it is Habsburg PROPAGANDA, not Habsburg HISTORY. However, I still find it very interesting for the kernels of truth it may contain, and I personally have time to "waste" on it, so your thread is very enjoyable to me.


I initially decided to talk about the Arch for the same reasons you are showing here: the kernels of truth it may contain. And in fact at this point I see that the amount of information on the Arch is so abundant that a review is justly going to be much longer. You made me ponder about this aspect, so I would like to better explain my point of view.

First of all, as I said, the various aspects (kernels) contained, especially when it comes to the history of the Franks and their connection to the Troyans, the mention of the Sicambrians and all the various hypotetical conclusions I underlined n the various posts. This is to me the most interesting part since I consider it a window on a past that has been deemed legendary after the introduction of History as 'science' during the 16th and 17th century. These 'myths' were absolutely real during the so-called Middel-ages, otherwise royal families would have not tried to connect their family trees to those characters. The fact that you and modern historians call all of this 'PROPAGANDA' implicitely means that it had a great value when it was done. But after centuries of 'school' we now think these connections to Hector of Troy like some joke. It would be like to say that Biden and Mickey Mouse are related.

Secondly, the Arch is also a genealogy. I didn't intend to cover this aspect initially but it is part of the thraed for sure. Maybe I am developing a fetish for the Habsburgs, but if this is a thing is just because I barely believe the common narrative about them, since it is connected to their downfall between the 18th and 19th century and the establishment of a New World Order, bit by bit. So I definitively see how they could be interested in faking their past to claim more power and doing their thing, but when it comes to an objective review of their deeds and family I only see impartiality and prejudice. I have now cleared my mind a little bit more so I'm trying to better explain my point of view.

The first point is that, as I said, there is a general disbelief in what we NOW call myth but was considered history a few hundred years ago. It was not just the Habsburgs who talked about Troyans and Herculeses. But all of this was slowly but surely demonized by the new wave of humanists, which in due time became illuminists, through the sudden discovery of various 'ancient' books centuries years old containing the TRUE history of the world. Good thing there are now people starting to open their eyes and seeing this sudden 're-awakening' as a fraud, an artificial narrative prompted by those who had the exclusive right on culture. Isn't it the same thing we are looking at right now, when academia, school and media all together say the same things in chorus, despite the great amount of evidence they are just making fun of us?
It is said that Rudolf IV faked the Privilegium Maius, faked his descent from Julius Caesar through the Colonna family (no primary source is given by the authors you mention though) and therefore he is what historians want us to believe. Those same historians who, consciously or not, have been taught history by the descendants of the first humanists whom I mention in the first point.
Petrarch was the poet... yes, in Italy, where he was born, it is taught that he was a poet and an intellectual as few have ever seen, since he was the first bringing light to that dark period called the middle-ages!!! ... the 'poet' who was entusted with the task to identify the Privilegium Maius as a fake. Not a word is ever shared about this most important aspect of his life and it seems that he took the task by himself, no one asking... really? It's the SILENCE around these issues that gives trust to the common narrative!
And who was this Petrarch anyway? The first thing to know is quite incredible. How is it possible that historians constantly fail to see what an amateur like me manage to see after just 2 minutes of 'research'? Petrarch, the one directly attacking Rudolf IV, the guy descended from Caesar through the Colonna, was AT THE SERVICE OF THE COLONNA!!! (Francesco Petrarca - Wikipedia) The Colonna were one of the families behind the Roman/Vatican power during the Middle-ages. How is it possible that historians fail to see the enormous conflict of interests all around Petrarch? Are we sure that the word FAKE has to be associated with Rudolf and not with Petrarch and his clients?
The role of Petrarch is not just about the Privilegium Maius, which is a thing enormous in itself. HE WAS THE FIRST TO DEVELOP THE CONCEPT OF 'DARK AGES'!!! In other words he was at the service of the most powerful Vatican families and his job was to say to the world that the previous age was dark, but now the humanists (at the service of the Vatican) were about to bring the light of knowledge to the world. Alight once lost but now rediscovered beneath the ground in Rome (statues, monuments...) and in libraries. Historians really don't care to ponder about the fact that those libraries where ALWAYS located in France-Germany, the center of the Roman Empire for about 5-6 centuries in the time of Petrarch. The Empire being located there and Petrarch talking about 'dark ages' simply meant that he was equating the Empire to darkness. The role of humanism sponsored by the Colonna and the Vatican was to defeat darkness. So what about Rudolf?
Petrarch was succeeded by Flavio Biondo, who invented the term Middle-ages, thus equating that period with the 'dark ages'. and by Bracciolini, who was probably at the center of multiple fabrications many on this forum know vwey well.
So I have many doubts about the current narrative. The Middle-Dark-Ages were created by humanists at the service of the Vatican. No one knew about it before them and apparently humanists always had to go north to find the books they were searching. No books were found in southern Italy, where it would be natural to preserve the testimony of ancient greatness.

In the light of all this and the various leaks shown by established history, are we really sure that those genealogies have to be fake? Isn't it true that the ones who are saying those genealogies are fake are the 'spritual' inheritors of those Petrarch, Biondo and Bracciolini who worked for the Vatican?



Fawkes said:


> this was mainly meant to be visual propaganda to glorify the Habsburgs. Besides, how many people could read back in those days anyway? The primary purpose of this Arch was to be optically awesome to the subjects of Maximilian, and it most certainly was!


In the light of all I've said I don't really see how a brief piece of artwork could be used as propaganda! Propaganda is done through quantity, not quality. And if the masses were ignorant than propaganda of this kind is useless. The modern literacy is not a gift from above to improve humanity but a way to instruct the child when young in order to convince him that we live in the perfect age of progress and you have to trust science. The Arch was not propaganda but the typical way to show strenght to their opponents, like roasters do before the fight.



Will Scarlet said:


> It was something these aristocratic types did to satisfy their egos. Perhaps the Arch was something similar?


Or, in the light of what I just said, it was the most accurate genealogy available and it came to pass as propaganda or vanity by their enemies, who in the meantime were re-writing history by inventing their scientifically approved past while diminishing the history of their enemies.



Fawkes said:


> On a much larger scale, you may be right. The Memorial of Maximilian also included a statue of King Arthur as his ancestor. Apparently the ambition of Maximilian knew no bounds. Not only did Maximilian get Pope Julius II (who himself chose his papal name in honor of Julius Caesar) to declare him Emperor elect, without having to be crowned in Rome (travel in hostile Italy was dangerous for him), he even wanted to take his place as Pope when Julius became seriously ill, and thus be Emperor and Pope simultaneously!


Or, in the light of what I just said, it was the Vatican ambition which knew no boudary and they wanted to steal the privileges of the Emperors to their own advantage. The dispute between the Guelphs and the Ghibellines is well known. Thinking that Petrarch acted against the Habsburgs out of his own whim and with no other reason than pure achievement of the truth is a silly way to look at the issue. So I would twicw or thrice before saying the Habsburgs were the culprit here.

So in the end the main question is: who was Petrarch? Why historians don't speak about his evident conflict of interest?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 10, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Maybe I am developing a fetish for the Habsburgs


I understand, as I have been studying them for years, and have alleged family connections to them, among which are 
(1) supposed descent from Otto II, Count of Habsburg, from my Father's Mother- Otto II, Count of Habsburg - Wikipedia
(2) distant kinship to Sophie Habsburg Sophie Habsburg - Wikipedia, grandniece of Blessed Karl of Austria, the last Habsburg Emperor. Sophie married Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz, Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz - Wikipedia, the 2nd cousin, thrice removed, of Otto Weriand of Windisch-Grätz,  who married Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria, daughter of the tragic Habsburg Crown Prince Rudolf, of the Mayerling mystery.



Silveryou said:


> their downfall between the 18th and 19th century and the establishment of a New World Order


Was it really a downfall, or a disguise? Francis II did give up the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, and become Francis I, Emperor of Austria, but he had been both for two years previously (a unique doppelganger Emperor), and then, after the "downfall" of Napoleon, served as the first president of the German Confederation following its establishment in 1815. His great-great-grandson Blessed Karl lost the Austrian throne in 1918, after World War I, but an uncle to Karl, Prince Aloys of Liechtenstein, was married to a daughter of the grandfather of Karl, Archduke Karl Ludwig, the brother of Emperors Franz Joseph of Austria and Maximilian of Mexico. Their grandson, Prince Hans-Adam II, now rules Liechtenstein, and is the billionaire owner of the banking group LGT, making him one of the world's richest heads of state, and Europe's wealthiest monarch. 



Silveryou said:


> who was Petrarch?


His father belonged to the political party of the White Guelphs along with the famous poet Dante, being its most illustrious member. They both were then exiled from Florence by the opposing party, the Black Guelphs.  Ser Petracco - Wikipedia


----------



## Safranek (Nov 10, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Maybe I am developing a fetish for the Habsburgs, but if this is a thing is just because I barely believe the common narrative about them, since it is connected to their downfall between the 18th and 19th century and the establishment of a New World Order, bit by bit.



Funny how you just posted this while I was answering the Habsburg question in the Scaliger thread:

Joseph Justus Scaliger according to Jacob Duellman

Regarding their downfall between the 18th and 19th centuries, it had nothing to do with them falling out of favor with their financiers. It had more to do with the fact that they were slowly strangling a nation they ruled by force (Hungary) by destroying their culture in every way they could over hundreds of years while selling out their resources to their foreign supporters, like the Fuggers.

For this, I can provide references when I get some time, to appreciate the scope of their activity. While they also did this to other nations in Europe, the length of their rule in those nations was significantly shorter.

So the main reasons as I see them are:

1. They fell out of favor with the people they ruled.
2. They outlived their usefulness as the age of revolutions was at hand and new types of government were introduced by the PTB of the time.

For additional confirmation of their present well-being, along with all those other families like Orsinis Medicis, etc. all you need to do is a little digging to uncover the true worth of those families today and the many enterprises and 'clubs' they belong to silently in the background. The methods have changed but it seems the rulers haven't.



Fawkes said:


> I understand, as I have been studying them for years, and have alleged family connections to them, among which are
> (1) supposed descent from Otto II, Count of Habsburg, from my Father's Mother- Otto II, Count of Habsburg - Wikipedia
> (2) distant kinship to Sophie Habsburg Sophie Habsburg - Wikipedia, grandniece of Blessed Karl of Austria, the last Habsburg Emperor. Sophie married Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz, Mariano Hugo, Prince of Windisch-Graetz - Wikipedia, the 2nd cousin, thrice removed, of Otto Weriand of Windisch-Grätz, who married Archduchess Elisabeth Marie of Austria, daughter of the tragic Habsburg Crown Prince Rudolf, of the Mayerling mystery.



Nothing to brag about, at least not on this site.... (Your Highness).


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 10, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Nothing to brag about, at least not on this site.... (Your Highness).


To stay on topic with this thread, all I can do is "Arch" my eyebrows at that remark! 


Safranek said:


> It had more to do with the fact that they were slowly strangling a nation they ruled by force (Hungary) by destroying their culture in every way they could


Wasn't Crown Prince Rudolf trying to change all of that, and therefore "Mayerling" had to be "arranged" for him, so that he could not succeed to the throne? Lots of theories about the truth of that incident.


----------



## Safranek (Nov 10, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> To stay on topic with this thread, all I can do is "Arch" my eyebrows at that remark!
> 
> Wasn't Crown Prince Rudolf trying to change all of that, and therefore "Mayerling" had to be "arranged" for him, so that he could not succeed to the throne? Lots of theories about the truth of that incident.



Yes, similar had happened in other ruling families when their off-spring were 'unfit' to tow the family line. Rare exceptions in many generations. I do not envy the souls who are born into those situations as they have to fear even their own families after it becomes evident that the years 'proper upbringing' still left them with a conscience they wish to act upon.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 10, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I understand, as I have been studying them for years, and have alleged family connections to them


Everything you say is precious to me... 'Your Highness' 


Fawkes said:


> Was it really a downfall, or a disguise? Francis II did give up the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, and become Francis I, Emperor of Austria, but he had been both for two years previously (a unique doppelganger Emperor), and then, after the "downfall" of Napoleon, served as the first president of the German Confederation following its establishment in 1815. His great-great-grandson Blessed Karl lost the Austrian throne in 1918, after World War I, but an uncle to Karl, Prince Aloys of Liechtenstein, was married to a daughter of the grandfather of Karl, Archduke Karl Ludwig, the brother of Emperors Franz Joseph of Austria and Maximilian of Mexico. Their grandson, Prince Hans-Adam II, now rules Liechtenstein, and is the billionaire owner of the banking group LGT, making him one of the world's richest heads of state, and Europe's wealthiest monarch.





Safranek said:


> For additional confirmation of their present well-being, along with all those other families like Orsinis Medicis, etc. all you need to do is a little digging to uncover the true worth of those families today and the many enterprises and 'clubs' they belong to silently in the background. The methods have changed but it seems the rulers haven't.


Right on the spot. Your questions are my own. My questioning the narrative doesn't mean I'm not aware of the various recycling going on. But you know! If you give me a million dollars/euros/whatever you make me very happy and I would probably be already satisfied. When it comes to the 'higher spheres', I bet that losing the position of Roman Emperors and putting an end to a thousand years Empire is a loss no money could ever repay... unless someone show me the Habsburgs having improved their lives after this shock! I would say that they now obey while they previously commanded. This reminds me (on a minor scale) of our Savoy nobility. They have lost their kingdom but they are still around without showing any kind of drama or emotion.

About Petrarch I know his basic biography. I asked 'Who was Petrarch?' meaning with that 'What was his role in the construction of our history and identity?'. I bet that this *poet* (!!! children are taught he was a *poet*!!!) was central to some major change of perception happening through the so-called Renaissance. I am inclined to think about Renaissance as one Great Reset. Isn't it true that during the Renaissance the New World was 'discovered'?


Safranek said:


> It had more to do with the fact that they were slowly strangling a nation they ruled by force (Hungary) by destroying their culture in every way they could over hundreds of years while selling out their resources to their foreign supporters, like the Fuggers.


Oh yes I have no doubt about their role in various misfits. Italy was conquered by the freemasons Savoy with the excuse of Habsburgs' bad rule over northern Italy. The ending result is modern unified Italy, pizza and mafia. Urrah for the Rottenchildren!


Safranek said:


> For this, I can provide references when I get some time, to appreciate the scope of their activity.


You should! If not here, where else?


Safranek said:


> So the main reasons as I see them are:
> 
> 1. They fell out of favor with the people they ruled.
> 2. They outlived their usefulness as the age of revolutions was at hand and new types of government were introduced by the PTB of the time.


I agree. The banksters, already part of that world in a subordinate role, took power for themselves and changed the narrative. The Habsburgs and many others have quickly changed their habits to not being taken away. Obviously this is a theme recurrent in many threads. It's entirely possible that I have my own particular and biased point of view about it as many probably know


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 11, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> So in the end the main question is: who was Petrarch? Why historians don't speak about his evident conflict of interest?


"The political fall of Cola in 1347, especially favored by the Colonna family, will be the decisive push by Petrarch to abandon his ancient protectors: it was in fact in that year that he officially left the _entourage_ of Cardinal Giovanni [62] . " Francesco Petrarca - Wikipedia

"written on behalf of Rudolph IV of Habsburg between 1358 and 1359, is known as *privileium maius ...... including some attributed to Julius Caesar and Nero" Privilegium maius - Wikipedia*

There was no conflict of interest. Petrarch had a falling out with the Colonna family a dozen years before the *privileium maius was even published, and so, if the Habsburgs were truly descended from the Colonna family and Julius Caesar, Petrarch would have been against them too. *




Silveryou said:


> Everything you say is precious to me... 'Your Highness'


Thank You for the compliment! I have a feeling, though, that I should be called by the name of my "ancestor" Osiris, as it looks as though I am going to be chopped up into many pieces on this forum.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 11, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> These 'myths' were absolutely real during the so-called Middel-ages, otherwise royal families would have not tried to connect their family trees to those characters. The fact that you and modern historians call all of this 'PROPAGANDA' implicitely means that it had a great value when it was done. But after centuries of 'school' we now think these connections to Hector of Troy like some joke. It would be like to say that Biden and Mickey Mouse are related.





Silveryou said:


> The first point is that, as I said, there is a general disbelief in what we NOW call myth but was considered history a few hundred years ago. It was not just the Habsburgs who talked about Troyans and Herculeses. But all of this was slowly but surely demonized by the new wave of humanists, which in due time became illuminists, through the sudden discovery of various 'ancient' books centuries years old containing the TRUE history of the world.



Yes yes yes and yes... and more yeses. That was my point about the British aristocracy's desperate need for validation by faking a descent from King Arthur. Prior to all the demonisation by the humanists, so-called 'mythology' had already been butchered by the Christian monks and scribes and bishops.

By the way, did I say Yes!


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 11, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> There was no conflict of interest. Petrarch had a falling out with the Colonna family a dozen years before the *privileium maius was even published, and so, if the Habsburgs were truly descended from the Colonna family and Julius Caesar, Petrarch would have been against them too. *


This is just your speculation though! The silence by historians is in itself very meaningful (in a negative way). Petrarch having no clue about 'real' history is what I don't believe the most. He was one of those who apparently out of the blue invented the 'dark ages', something that modern historians are beginning to entirely refuse, since it's a concept that makes no sense. But at that time the Colonnas and the like had already created his reputation and he was ready to tell the world that all civilization was born in Rome. How can you believe in this PROPAGANDA? The conflict of interests was abnormal!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 11, 2021)

Trying to make a coherent "history" out of the Habsburg origin hypotheses I have found so far, if that is possible (Yes, I expect it to be chopped to pieces, like "my" Osiris!) -
PS- Please ignore the crossed lines, it copied badly 

Notice that these "Jesus" grandnephews were poor, hardworking farmers.  Jesus' Relatives

Two possible Habsburg descent lines from those original farmer brothers, James and Zoker, grandnephews of "Jesus"-
"The theory that the Habsburgs descended from one of the eight desposynic princes, who visited the Pope in Rome, Year 318, to persuade the Pope to restore the dispossessed Desposyni to the papacy." The Pope refused their request, and they were not heard from again.
*(1)"Simon, descendant of the James who [and his brother, Zoker] stood before Emperor Domitian in Year 96, grandson of Jude "of Galilee", called "The Lord's [Jesus'] Brother", was alive in Year 318
(2) Joses, descendant of the Zoker, the brother of James, who, and his brother, stood before Emperor Domitian in Year 96, grandson of Jude "of Galilee", called "The Lord's [Jesus'] Brother", was alive in Year 318"*​
One of these families eventually settles in the Aargau during the 4th century persecution of the Desposyni. 


*"It is speculated that female members of the Eticho clan (Eticho lived about 645-690) married into the male line of an unnamed family of peasant FARMERS who began to gain more and more land around the Rhine. The wealth of this particular farming family grew owing to the trading of crops with Bavaria and northern Italy and their subsequent purchase of more land from these agricultural profits." They were still farmers at this time, but with a prestigious heritage, and they were beginning to acquire wealth, which led to intermarrying with other prestigious family lines. 



"In the 20th century the theory was proposed that the Habsburgs descended from a "desposynic" descent-line, that is, a male-line branch of Christianity's Holy Family. This theory is based on the supposition that a "desposynic" descent-line settled in the Swiss canton of Aargau, near present day Zurich, sometime in the fourth century during the persecution of the "Desposyni" [= descendants of Jesus' so-called "brothers" referred to by St. Matthew 13:55], and was prestigious enough to marry female members of the imperial Roman nobility, and later female members of the Merovingians of France and Germany, and, during the period of the Holy Roman Empire married female members of the Etichoni of Alsace, the Colonna of Tuscany, and the Pierleoni of Aventine." This would explain all of the different Habsburg origin pedigrees that were proposed in the past. ???



By 952 we have the traditional Habsburg family founder, Guntram the Rich, in 1273 Rudolf I becomes the first Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, and in 1515 Maximilian I creates his Arch of Glory, showing them to be the most prestigious family in Europe, if not the world. 



All Fomenko fanatics are cordially invited to change this timeline anyway they want to! *
​


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 11, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> By 952 we have the traditional Habsburg family founder, Guntram the Rich, in 1273 Rudolf I becomes the first Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor, and in 1515 Maximilian I creates his Arch of Glory, showing them to be the most prestigious family in Europe, if not the world.
> All Fomenko fanatics are cordially invited to change this timeline anyway they want to!


I think you are catching the problem with your final line. I cannot stress enough my absolute _thirst_ of *PRIMARY SOURCES!*

It's important to me, believe me!

The dates are an issue for certain, and even more because it seems apparent, to me (maybe I'm the only one in the world, who knows), that Petrarch is/was at the centre of the eventual creation of that strange gap in time called the middle-ages. He started the whole thing calling it 'dark ages'.
Now I understand that I'm starting to sound repetitive, but I really don't trust the narrative of the genius big brain poet who understood everything and brought the light of his immense spirit to the world by teaching us that we were barbarians fell from the incredible height of the civilization of the distant past. Nope. It sounds ridiculous to me.
My explanation with the feet well lean on the ground is that he was at the service of someone who paid him to tell stories. Stories which he may have believed to be true! Who knows! But also stories which were extremely convenient to a certain faction represented by the Colonnas, true descendants of Caesar. Isn't it strange that he criticized the Habsburgs for their lineage but he didn't say a word about his masters? Not surprising if you think they were the ones who launched his career.

But even if we remove Petrarch from the discourse, things really don't change so much. The point is first of all that your report is not verifiable through primary sources. It is interesting and you are doing great in sharing with me (us) this content, but I have already lost faith in historians(genealogists/whatever since they are humans with their own particular agenda or, even worse, they are just brainwashed in accepting some _'truths' _teached to them in school and academia without the minimum critical spirit.
Modern history has been created out of nothing, or maybe out of a previous suppressed history, and probably starting with the Renaissance period and, as I said, Petrarch.

I would really like to know what kind of primary sources bring historians to believe these genealogies should always be considered fake. I understand that in this particular case the Habsburg themselves are probably the first having some sort of confusion about their past. But denying they had a past somewhat related to the previous era is equally impossible.

And this brings us back to the Arch, since it's the only primary source I have to look at. And yes I know there are a lot of Doctors and Professors and Geniuses out there who know everything and can assure how the Habsburgs, Fomenko, 9/11 and moon-landing skeptics are all wrong. Fine! I am just asking the primary sources because someone teached me the art of reading in the past and now I want to look for myself!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 11, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I think you are catching the problem with your final line. I cannot stress enough my absolute _thirst_ of *PRIMARY SOURCES!*
> 
> It's important to me, believe me!


I take it you don't think there is a possibility of the Habsburgs starting out as farmers, then?  That's OK, and seriously, no sarcasm intended, I would love to see your rudimentary genealogy and timeline of the Habsburgs, if you have one, with my understanding that it is not set in stone, just what you are thinking at this particular moment in time.


Fawkes said:


> I take it you don't think there is a possibility of the Habsburgs starting out as farmers, then?  That's OK, and seriously, no sarcasm intended, I would love to see your rudimentary genealogy and timeline of the Habsburgs, if you have one, with my understanding that it is not set in stone, just what you are thinking at this particular moment in time.


So, if I understand you correctly, the Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I is your "only primary source". This shows his descent, generation by generation, from the King of France (Merovingian) Clovis on a literal family "tree", and ultimately on that tree from Troy. There is no representation of any Colonna or Julius Caesar on that tree, although "Julius" is shown first among the Roman Emperors who preceded Maximilian, elsewhere on his Arch. You believe that Maximilian did not create his Arch as propaganda, but as a true record of his descent from the Merovingians and Trojans. Does Fomenko enter into this, having Clovis the same as some later medieval king, with a primary source showing that this medieval king would be much closer in time to Maximilian?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 12, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I take it you don't think there is a possibility of the Habsburgs starting out as farmers, then?  That's OK, and seriously, no sarcasm intended, I would love to see your rudimentary genealogy and timeline of the Habsburgs, if you have one, with my understanding that it is not set in stone, just what you are thinking at this particular moment in time.


I don't have any genealogy to propose other than what is on the Arch. I would be happy to see what sources historians consider to be true to come to their conclusions. It is baffling to see they cite the Arch and nothing else! Are those conclusions just their own opinionated fiction? Is it really possible to cross reference various sources omitting various info uìin the process and then proclaiming the final result as something true? My answer is obviously no. This is fiction.


Fawkes said:


> So, if I understand you correctly, the Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I is your "only primary source".


Yes absolutely. In the sense that no one has showed me anyhthing else, not that I am here trying to push the Arch for whatever reason. This is why I said it seems that I am developing a fetish


Fawkes said:


> You believe that Maximilian did not create his Arch as propaganda, but as a true record of his descent from the Merovingians and Trojans. Does Fomenko enter into this, having Clovis the same as some later medieval king, with a primary source showing that this medieval king would be much closer in time to Maximilian?


I cannot conclude anything. This is my point. And I have many doubts about the conclusions by historians for various reasons:

the few links you provide show our late _interpretation_ of those genealogies and they generally don't mention the sources, and even worse those sources seem to be not availbale for consultation (and probably without a proper translation).
historians _fail _to mention the obvious connection between their most important accuser (Petrarch) and the families who actually ruled the Roman curia in those times (the Colonnas). This is not a secondary issue, since Petrarch was not a POET. He was an intellectual doing his political duty.
Fomenko enters the scene because he (and other recentists too) have shown how the scaffolding of our current history is the product of the minds of various Italian individuals who we now call the first humanists. Petrarch is considered one of the first! So there is an obvious connection here.
Therefore we actually can believe in the common narrative pushed by humanists and think that Troyans lived 3200 years ago, Caesar lived 2000 years ago and Clovis 1600 years ago or...
... or realise that these characters were pushed back in time by humanists while in reality they lived in a much more resìcent time thus making the Habsgurg's claim much more believable.

The main problem historians have with those claims, whether they want to say it or not, is that they have being instructed in school to think that our chronology of the world is 100% correct, while Fomenko has shown it has no scientific basis.
If we remove those 3200, 2000 and 1600 years (and I don't know what the end result could be), then suddenly Troyans, Caesar and Clovis could have lived in a more recent past, thus making those claims believable.

Remember: *it was Petrarch who actually created the dark ages!!!* Do you see the connection?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 12, 2021)

"Charles IV, Francesco Petrarca and the _Privilegium maius_​The _Privilegium maius_ was submitted to Emperor Charles IV from the Luxembourg dynasty at the court conference in Nuremberg in November 1360 for confirmation. A great deal has been written about how Charles IV reacted, the only thing that is clearly documented is that the emperor ultimately treated the privilege as a list of demands that he partially confirmed, partially confirmed in a modified form and Part refused, giving reasons for his decisions.

Research has given various interpretations to the expert opinion that the emperor obtained from Francesco Petrarca . The indignant and disparaging judgment that exists only relates to the document that was allegedly issued on October 4th, 1058 by King Henry IV's office for Margrave Ernst of Austria. This contains the confirmation of two documents issued by the Roman "emperors" Julius Caesar and Nero , the alleged wording of which is advertised . According to these, the historical region of Noricum was already granted special rights under them. It is not clear whether Charles IV presented the entire set of documents to Petrarch or whether the emperor only sought his opinion with regard to the two pseudo-ancient texts, since Petrarch was considered one of the best experts on Roman antiquity at the time. Petrarch himself obviously considered the document to be genuine, but not its content, and he would have assumed that the chancellery of Henry IV, which allegedly had issued it, was a forgery. His derogatory remark about the author, whom he describes as an arch prankster, a roaring ox and a screaming donkey, is likely to have related to this office. In an essay from 2018, the question is discussed for the first time that the "Petrarca report" was not about a factual, sober report as a basis for decision-making, but a text that could be evaluated for a political debate.

After lengthy conflicts with Charles IV, Rudolf IV limited himself from 1361 to enforcing the demands of the _Privilegium maius_ within those countries and dominions that were clearly ruled by him or his dynasty. Some of his successors have continued this policy." Privilege Maius - zxc.wiki

"The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules, who, coming from the lands about Armenia, had invested his heirs with Austria and Bavaria respectively. The Habsburgs were also swift to discover Roman credentials of their own, promoting their supposed descent from the allegedly senatorial family of Colonna. Chroniclers added to the story, describing how two brothers exiled from ancient Rome had gone north of the Alps, one of whom went on to found Castle Habsburg.

 The substance of the forgery lay with the first two charters, which are known as the ‘Pseudo-Henry’ and the ‘Greater Privilege.’ The author of the Pseudo-Henry, who was probably Rudolf’s chancellor, pretended that it was a charter issued by Emperor Henry IV in 1054, drawn up to record the contents of two letters in the keeping of Duke Ernest of Babenberg. The first letter was supposedly addressed by Julius Caesar to the people of the ‘eastern land’, by which was plainly meant Austria. Julius Caesar ordered the easterners or Austrians to accept his uncle as their ruler, who was given an absolute power over them as their ‘feudal lord.’ The fake letter also admitted Julius Caesar’s uncle to the innermost counsels of the Roman Empire, ‘so that henceforth no weighty matter or suit be resolved without his knowledge.’ In the other letter contained in the Pseudo-Henry, the emperor Nero similarly addressed the people of the east. Nero declared that because they outstripped in splendour all other peoples of the Roman Empire, he had upon the advice of the senate released them from paying all imperial taxes and awarded them freedom for ever more." Habsburgs: Losing Place and Forging a Past


Silveryou said:


> If we remove those 3200, 2000 and 1600 years (and I don't know what the end result could be), then suddenly Troyans, Caesar and Clovis could have lived in a more recent past, thus making those claims believable.


Clovis actually did have a grandson named Guntram, who lived 400 years before the Habsburg founder Guntram the Rich. Is it possible to make them one person, and eliminate those four centuries? Guntram - Wikipedia It has been noted by other researchers that Guntram the Rich had a Merovingian name. Note also the similarity of "Clovis" with "Claudius", and Julius Caesar was the head of the Julio-Claudian Roman Emperor dynasty. Clovis was a Sicambrian, with Caesar associated in campaigns with that tribe in Gaul, and Caesar was also believed to have fathered children while conquering Gaul.


Fawkes said:


> Julius Caesar ordered the easterners or Austrians to accept his uncle as their ruler


This reminds me of the Colonna pedigree that David Hughes had of Guntram the Rich, with Zottone, 1st Duke of Benevento, as his ancestor, who was descended from the cousin of Julius Caesar. Also, there is a six century blank between Caesar and Zottone in that pedigree, that could be eliminated to bring the Caesars closer in time to the Colonnas and Habsburgs. As I mentioned before, the first Habsburg Roman Emperor Rudolf I circulated the idea of this Coronna/Caesar descent, after he was elected to the throne in 1273, only 300 years after his ancestor Guntram the Rich lived. Eliminate 600 years between Caesar and Zottone, and then 400 more with the two Guntrams, and you have thus eliminated a millennium, just like Fomenko, if you need to fit his theories into this equation somehow.


Fawkes said:


> The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules


Another Hercules connection.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 12, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> "Charles IV, Francesco Petrarca and the _Privilegium maius_​The _Privilegium maius_ was submitted to Emperor Charles IV from the Luxembourg dynasty at the court conference in Nuremberg in November 1360 for confirmation. A great deal has been written about how Charles IV reacted, the only thing that is clearly documented is that the emperor ultimately treated the privilege as a list of demands that he partially confirmed, partially confirmed in a modified form and Part refused, giving reasons for his decisions.
> 
> Research has given various interpretations to the expert opinion that the emperor obtained from Francesco Petrarca . The indignant and disparaging judgment that exists only relates to the document that was allegedly issued on October 4th, 1058 by King Henry IV's office for Margrave Ernst of Austria. This contains the confirmation of two documents issued by the Roman "emperors" Julius Caesar and Nero , the alleged wording of which is advertised . According to these, the historical region of Noricum was already granted special rights under them. It is not clear whether Charles IV presented the entire set of documents to Petrarch or whether the emperor only sought his opinion with regard to the two pseudo-ancient texts, since Petrarch was considered one of the best experts on Roman antiquity at the time. Petrarch himself obviously considered the document to be genuine, but not its content, and he would have assumed that the chancellery of Henry IV, which allegedly had issued it, was a forgery. His derogatory remark about the author, whom he describes as an arch prankster, a roaring ox and a screaming donkey, is likely to have related to this office. In an essay from 2018, the question is discussed for the first time that the "Petrarca report" was not about a factual, sober report as a basis for decision-making, but a text that could be evaluated for a political debate.
> 
> ...


The whole reconstruction is biased in so many ways that if I start commenting on every single aspect I will end a year from now. As I said: primary sources. Raw primary sources is what is needed, not pseudo-here and pseudo-there.
In any case, it's funny to see they are talking about Henry IV, an alter ego of Nero according to Fomenko (Arch of Glory of Imperator Maximilian I).


Fawkes said:


> Clovis actually did have a grandson named Guntram, who lived 400 years before the Habsburg founder Guntram the Rich. Is it possible to make them one person, and eliminate those four centuries? Guntram - Wikipedia It has been noted by other researchers that Guntram the Rich had a Merovingian name. Note also the similarity of "Clovis" with "Claudius", and Julius Caesar was the head of the Julio-Claudian Roman Emperor dynasty. Clovis was a Sicambrian, with Caesar associated in campaigns with that tribe in Gaul, and Caesar was also believed to have fathered children while conquering Gaul.





Fawkes said:


> This reminds me of the Colonna pedigree that David Hughes had of Guntram the Rich, with Zottone, 1st Duke of Benevento, as his ancestor, who was descended from the cousin of Julius Caesar. Also, there is a six century blank between Caesar and Zottone in that pedigree, that could be eliminated to bring the Caesars closer in time to the Colonnas and Habsburgs. As I mentioned before, the first Habsburg Roman Emperor Rudolf I circulated the idea of this Coronna/Caesar descent, after he was elected to the throne in 1273, only 300 years after his ancestor Guntram the Rich lived. Eliminate 600 years between Caesar and Zottone, and then 400 more with the two Guntrams, and you have thus eliminated a millennium


So you are interested in recentism! I'm confused
Good points anyway. I am not sure of what kind of relation there was between the French, the Gauls, the Romans and so on. I've made some posts about it here in this thread. If you want to delve into it you are free to do it and welcome!
It seems you are not considering one huge factor, which is the implicit position of the Roman Empire to the West of Austria, instead of the South where Rome is located and the Colonna family resided. Don't you think this would have been another element to immediately point out the forgery, without the intervention of...


Fawkes said:


> the expert opinion that the emperor obtained from Francesco Petrarca





Fawkes said:


> just like Fomenko, if you need to fit his theories into this equation somehow.


No no I'm not here to defend Fomenko. And in any case he thinks that the Habsburgs were Russians from Moscovy, so there's no point in using his reconstruction, imo. I was moved by his arguments to examine this time period and I'm totally convinced that Western European history belongs to Western Europe.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 12, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> In any case, it's funny to see they are talking about Henry IV, an alter ego of Nero according to Fomenko


Good catch!  As the first article noted, "Petrarch himself obviously considered the document (of Henry IV/Nero) to be genuine, but not its content, and he would have assumed that the chancellery of Henry IV, which allegedly had issued it, was a forgery." The "chancellor" of Nero was Seneca the Younger, who composed the documents for Nero, then was later forced to commit suicide for allegedly conspiring against him, and Petrarch surely knew this. It would appear that by 1360, the "faction" that Petrarch was working for against the Habsburgs, at this time, was the Luxembourg family, as he had left the employment of the Colonna family over a dozen years before this, in 1347. It was a close rivalry between houses, as Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV was both the second cousin (maternally) and father-in-law of Rudolf IV. By the way, have you noticed all of the "IV's" involved in this situation, Henry, Charles, Rudolf? Plus "Nero" is spelled with four letters!  



Silveryou said:


> So you are interested in recentism! I'm confused


That was just an accidental finding, as the gaps in time I found added up to a millennium, and I thought that might get a reaction from you! 

"it seems you are not considering one huge factor, which is the implicit position of the Roman Empire to the West of Austria, instead of the South where Rome is located and the Colonna family resided. Don't you think this would have been another element to immediately point out the forgery, without the intervention of...


> Fawkes said:
> the expert opinion that the emperor obtained from Francesco Petrarca"


Thank You for pointing that out to me, yes, it does seem very suspicious



Fawkes said:


> The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules, who, coming from the lands about Armenia, had invested his heirs with Austria and Bavaria respectively.


Besides this son of Hercules, and the Hercules Lybius in the ancestry of the Habsburgs, there is also a Roman element. Hercules was supposed to have married the daughter of the Roman pioneer before the Trojan War, Evander, and Evander shared common ancestry, through Atlas, with the family of Aeneas the Trojan. Evander of Pallantium - Wikipedia



Fawkes said:


> The Habsburgs were also swift to discover Roman credentials of their own, promoting their supposed descent from the allegedly senatorial family of Colonna. Chroniclers added to the story, describing how two brothers exiled from ancient Rome had gone north of the Alps, one of whom went on to found Castle Habsburg.


Is this a retelling of the story about the exiled brothers Romulus and Remus, many centuries before this, with Romulus eventually founding Rome, after killing Remus? "Although the tale takes place before the founding of Rome around 750 BC, the earliest known written account of the myth is from the late 3rd century BC. Possible historical basis for the story, as well as whether the twins' myth was an original part of Roman myth or a LATER DEVELOPMENT, is a subject of ongoing debate." Romulus was a descendant of Aeneas the Trojan, and also an ancestor of Julius Caesar, his "uncle", and his "cousin" Sextus . Romulus and Remus - Wikipedia  "Chroniclers added to the story" of the "Colonna", as the two brothers were "colonizers"?



Fawkes said:


> The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules, who, coming from the lands about Armenia, had invested his heirs with Austria and Bavaria respectively.


Armenia was split between the Byzantines and the Persians, and later the Russians were involved too. Denoting an ancient Tartarian origin?
.
.


Silveryou said:


> In any case, it's funny to see they are talking about Henry IV, an alter ego of Nero according to Fomenko


Rudolf IV descended from Henry IV, so according to Fomenko he would have descended from Nero too!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 14, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> It would appear that by 1360, the "faction" that Petrarch was working for against the Habsburgs, at this time, was the Luxembourg family, as he had left the employment of the Colonna family over a dozen years before this, in 1347. It was a close rivalry between houses, as Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV was both the second cousin (maternally) and father-in-law of Rudolf IV.


OK, while this site was temporarily down, I went to the Fomenko site for the first time, and found this at the Volume 7, Book 1, "Western Myth" section, Chapter 3- "4h. And at the very beginning of the Second Empire, there is the famous "antique" story about the murder of Julius Caesar by the SPELLERS [660]. It is striking that the story of the murder of Albrecht - that is, the Horde of Mikhail Tverskoy - practically coincides with the famous story of the "ancient" Plutarch, about the murder of Julius Caesar by Brutus. Let us also remind that ALBRECHT Austrian Habsburg has already superimposed on ALBERICA, a double of the "antique" Valery, that is, Julius Caesar, see "Numbers against Lies", ch.6. So the imposition of ALBRECHT on JULIUS CAESAR is well known to us from other independent results of our research.
The entire plot is almost literally reproduced in the famous work of the "antique" Plutarch [660], which tells about the death of Julius Caesar. Now it becomes clear when the "antique" Plutarch (PETRARCH?) Actually lived and wrote. Not earlier than the beginning of the XIV century."

If Roman Emperor Albrecht I, the son of the first Habsburg Roman Emperor Rudolf I, is an identity of Julius Caesar in the 13th century, then he was the grandfather in the male line of Rudolf IV.  Roman Emperor Charles IV wasn't his descendant, though he was the second cousin (maternally) and the father-in-law of Rudolf IV, as he was a male line Luxembourg. The Habsburgs claimed Julius Caesar and Colonna descents, and so Petrarch, who had broken his Colonna association over a dozen years before this, and was now with Charles IV, would have found it advantageous to discredit the "Privilegium maius", brought forth by Rudolf IV, for his present employer, in order to keep the rival past Roman Emperor line of Caesar/Colonna descended Habsburgs down in their place for him. Just another one of my speculations at this moment in time.


Fawkes said:


> he (Charles IV) was the second cousin (maternally) and the father-in-law of Rudolf IV, as he was a male line Luxembourg.


Though Charles IV was a male line Luxembourg, he was also of the Czech House of Přemyslid from his mother's side. He emphasized the latter due to his lifelong affinity for the Czech side of his inheritance. His mother's paternal grandfather, King Ottokar II of Bohemia, was the rival of his mother's maternal grandfather, Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor Rudolf I, for the Imperial throne, but was defeated and eventually killed in battle opposing him. Thus, Charles IV had a reason to "get even" with Rudolf's great-grandson Rudolf IV, and try to blacken and dismiss his imperial pretensions and privileges, as the shoe was on the other foot now. Charles also had Petrarch in his camp at this time, who had left the Colonnas, presumably Habsburg cousins, over a dozen years before, and was now in his service.


Silveryou said:


> in any case he thinks that the Habsburgs were Russians from Moscovy, so there's no point in using his reconstruction, imo.


Checking out Fomenko's site, it appears that he thinks the "Russian" Habsburgs descend from Rurik/Aeneas. He says Rurik was Russian, but this can go another way, with him being Scandinavian, having male line ancestry back to Woden, and then ultimately to Troy, with Memnon the nephew of King Priam, and thus cousin of Hector. The Trojan ancestry of Maximilian on his Arch of Glory would still stand, then.


Fawkes said:


> The Trojan ancestry of Maximilian on his Arch of Glory would still stand, then.


Besides the inheritance from the Western, Eastern, and Holy Roman Emperors depicted on the Arch of Glory of Maximilian, the later Habsburgs may even have claims to the English and Russian thrones, from Gytha, the daughter of King Harold of England in 1066. From Pretenders in the British Isles - 

"Gytha married a Russian, Vladimir II Monomakh, Veliki Knyaz (Grand Prince) of Kiev 1113-1125... - 


RURIKOVICH
Mstislav II the Great (G. Pr. Kiev 1125-32)...1107-1132
Vsevolod (Grand Prince Novgorod 1117-36)......1132-1138
Izyaslav (Grand Prince of Kiev 1146-1154).....1138-1154
Mstislav III (Gr. Pr. Kiev 1157-8, 1167-9)....1154-1172
Roman (Gr. Pr. Galitzia 1188, 1199-1205)......1172-1205
Daniel (Gr. Prince & King of Galitzia)........1205-1264
Daniel Romanovich led a chequered career as ruler in western Ukraine - he was Prince of Galitzia between 1205 and 1264 no less than eight separate times, being deposed by ambitious relatives on each of the first seven occasions. As if this weren't enough, his country endured invasion and conquest by the Mongols in 1246. In his last "term" (1242-64), he raised the status of Galitzia to that of a Kingdom, in 1253.
Lev (King of West Galitzia 1264-1300).........1264-1301
George (King of West Galitzia 1300-1308)......1301-1316
Alexander (Grand Prince of Suzdal 1309-32)....1316-1331
Constantine (Suz. 1331-41, Nizh. Novg. 42-55).1331-1355
Demetrius (Gr. Pr. Suzdal 1355-1383)..........1355-1383
Basil III (Gr. Prince Suzdal various times)...1383-1403
George IV (Gr. Pr. Suzdal 1418- ? )...........1403- ?
From the time of Yuri Vasilievich, the allodial holdings of this branch of the family were at Shuya, and these Suzdal Princes general used the dynastic name of "Shuisky".
Basil IV (Gr. Pr. Suzdal to 1446).............. ? -1458
Michael.......................................1458- ?
Andrew......................................... ? -1543
John..........................................1543-1573
Basil (Tsar of All Russia 1606-1610)..........1573-1612
Basil Shuisky was an influential Boyar who, during the Time of Troubles following the extinction of the Muscovy Rurikovichi, became Tsar for a time before being overwhelmed by rivals and deposed, ending his days in a monastery.
John..........................................1612-1638
At this point, the elder stemma of the Galitzian Rurikovichi apparently ends, with no cadet branches producing any further heirs. I find this a bit difficult to credit, since there are twelve generations between Ivan Shuisky and Daniel Romanovich. Still, the Muscovite Rurikovichi suffered a similarly complete extinction, so it is at least possible. If any reader has information about a continuation of the Shuisky line, I ask that you inform me of the details. Otherwise, the next line to produce extended generations of heirs and, in fact, progeny to this day, derives from a daughter of Daniel Romanovich. Pereslava (d. 1283) married a Polish Duke (Ziemowit of Mazovia). They produced a large family whose progeny run deeply through all the Polish partition Duchies of the 14th and 15th centuries. An elder line was mainly involved in Silesia, but it became entirely extinct in both male and female lines by 1521. A younger branch held Mazovia, Plock, and Warsaw among other locales. One line produced a series of daughters who married into, successively, Silesia-Teschen, Zapolya (where a son, Janos, became Prince of Transylvania and King of Hungary), Poland, Brandenburg, and Brunswick. Two generations of Brunswicks saw a marriage into Anhalt-Zerbst, and a remarriage in the next generation back to Brunswick, at which the 1630's are reached once again...
WELF (Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel)
Rudolph Augustus (D. Brun.-Wolfen. 1666-1704).1638-1704
Dorothea (fem.)................................1704-1722
OLDENBURG (Schleswig-Holstein-Plön)
Dorothea Sophia (fem.).........................1722-1765
Dorothea Sophia had no surviving descendents, and with her the elder branch of this gens disappears. But Rudolph Augustus had a younger brother, Anthony Ulrich, who had children. The senior (by English succession laws) surviving heir of Anthony Ulrich of Braunschweig-Wolfenbüttel was Elizabeth Christine (d. 1750). She married Charles VI, Holy Roman Emperor, and her eldest surviving heir was Maria Theresa, Queen of Hungaary and Bohemia, Archduchess of Austria and Lady of much else - she wed Francis Stephen of Lorraine and Tuscany, who was made Holy Roman Emperor in turn. She and her descendents are:
HABSBURG
Maria Theresa (Q. of Hungary + Bohemia).......1765-1780
VAUDEMONT (Lorraine-Habsburg)
Joseph II (HRE)...............................1780-1790
Leopold II (HRE)..............................1790-1792
Francis (HRE + Emp. of Austria)...............1792-1835
Ferdinand (Emp. of Austria 1835-1848).........1835-1875
Francis Joseph (Emp. of Austria 1848-1916)....1875-1916
Charles (Emp. of Austria 1916-1918)...........1916-1922
Otto..........................................1922-2011
Yes, assuming the Suzdal-Shuiskys are truly extinct, the next senior inheritor to the Anglo-Saxon heritage would be... Dr. Otto von Lorraine-Habsburg, who holds so many inherited legacies that he has his own article. One might also note that Daniel Romanovich represents the elder surving stemma of the Rurikovichi. By later Russian succession laws, the list from Daniel could plausibly be argued as the legitimate successors to that vast family, albeit the fact that there are a number of younger branches of the Ruriks still in existence. Still, with the Muscovite Ruriks gone, and this line representing the Suzdal Shuiskys, a case could be made for including the Tsardom of All the Russias among Ottos putative honours.
Charles.......................................2011-"
Truly, at one time the sun never set on the Habsburg empire, not even counting what they might have later inherited. Whether Fomenko is right about them or not, Maximilian appears to be, on his awesome Arch of Glory!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 14, 2021)

This is a side-note, silly idea kind of comment. I'm researching something completely different to the subject of the OP, but not entirely unrelated. What I am finding is that conundrums, such as those discussed above, are a feature of the Christian necessity of making indigenous gods into living humans. This plays havoc with genealogy and timelines, because everyone wants to be a descendant of someone who, in most instances, did not have a physical existence.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 14, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> the Christian necessity of making indigenous gods into living humans. This plays havoc with genealogy and timelines, because everyone wants to be a descendant of someone who, in most instances, did not have a physical existence.


Yes, at least on his Arch, Maximilian did show some "restraint", as his personal generational genealogy, on his literal family "tree", ends back with Clovis, a historical human king, but implies an ultimately Trojan origin, without mentioning mythological heroes and gods. Or maybe he just ran out of room!


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 14, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Besides this son of Hercules, and the Hercules Lybius in the ancestry of the Habsburgs, there is also a Roman element. Hercules was supposed to have married the daughter of the Roman pioneer before the Trojan War, Evander, and Evander shared common ancestry, through Atlas, with the family of Aeneas the Trojan. Evander of Pallantium - Wikipedia


I don't think these characters should be ùunderstood through the lens of modern geography and 'genetics' though.


Fawkes said:


> "Chroniclers added to the story" of the "Colonna", as the two brothers were "colonizers"?


Let's keep the thread documented through primary sources, otherwise it becomes impossible to understand where we come from and where we are going. Try to find the sources (primary) about the Colonnas descending from Caesar. As I told you, I have many doubts about historians' opinions since they apparantly cannot see what lies behind their noses.


Fawkes said:


> Denoting an ancient Tartarian origin?


Is there anyone who understands what is/was/would be this Tartaria. I think a Tartaria thread should be opened by someone with teh right questions and feet adherent to the ground.


Fawkes said:


> By the way, have you noticed all of the "IV's" involved in this situation, Henry, Charles, Rudolf? Plus "Nero" is spelled with four letters!





Fawkes said:


> Rudolf IV descended from Henry IV, so according to Fomenko he would have descended from Nero too!


Try not to be taken away by Fomenko too much. He thinks that Roman Emperors were Russians (aka Tartarians) from Russia and Byzantium. I trust his *de*construction, not his *re*construction. And yes there are 4 letters but I don't think it's an important factor.






Fawkes said:


> Just another one of my speculations at this moment in time.


Calm down, Your Majesty, there are many things we don't understand at the moment. But Your moment is coming


Fawkes said:


> and so Petrarch, who had broken his Colonna association over a dozen years before this, and was now with Charles IV, would have found it advantageous to discredit the "Privilegium maius", brought forth by Rudolf IV, for his present employer, in order to keep the rival past Roman Emperor line of Caesar/Colonna descended Habsburgs down in their place for him





Fawkes said:


> Charles also had Petrarch in his camp at this time, who had left the Colonnas, presumably Habsburg cousins, over a dozen years before, and was now in his service


Petrarch's role goes well beyond the struggle between various branches of the same famillies. He is the founding father of the 'Dark Ages' and one of the first humanists who suddenly rediscovered ancient Rome out of thin air, after multiple centuries of silence. Rome at that time was residence of the Colonnas and the Holy See. I think you should consider these elements too.


Fawkes said:


> Checking out Fomenko's site, it appears that he thinks the "Russian" Habsburgs descend from Rurik/Aeneas. He says Rurik was Russian, but this can go another way, with him being Scandinavian, having male line ancestry back to Woden, and then ultimately to Troy, with Memnon the nephew of King Priam, and thus cousin of Hector. The Trojan ancestry of Maximilian on his Arch of Glory would still stand, then.


Ceck the Homer in the Baltic thread Homer in the Baltic. By the way, talking about Russians or Scandinavians is not really the point, since it drives us into nationalistic identities which don't correspond to the ancient tribal mindset. I would say that those people were Russians AND scandinavians... and much more.


Fawkes said:


> Besides the inheritance from the Western, Eastern, and Holy Roman Emperors depicted on the Arch of Glory of Maximilian, the later Habsburgs may even have claims to the English and Russian thrones, from Gytha, the daughter of King Harold of England in 1066.


Don't know. What I know is that Romans and Normans both conquered Britain. While delving into British territories, Romans and Normans both conquered the Holy Land, in two of the most famous conquests of Jerusalem: the one which prompted the diaspora (Romans) and the one during which there were 'persecutions' by the crusaders (Normans).


Fawkes said:


> Yes, at least on his Arch, Maximilian did show some "restraint", as his personal generational genealogy, on his literal family "tree", ends back with Clovis, a historical human king, but implies an ultimately Trojan origin, without mentioning mythological heroes and gods. Or maybe he just ran out of room!


But this is the only primary source we have, the rest being just historians' words. Sorry if I am a nuisance but I would like to see these genealogies before saying the Habsburgs were actually doing 'propaganda'.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 14, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Try not to be taken away by Fomenko too much. He thinks that Roman Emperors were Russians (aka Tartarians) from Russia and Byzantium. I trust his *de*construction, not his *re*construction.


Thank You for another chart, it makes it easier for me to visualize what Fomenko is talking about.

 "I trust his *de*construction, not his *re*construction." Good catch phrase, I enjoy apt word play! 

I especially disagree with his conclusive summing up at the bottom of that chart. Yes, in 1613 Russia had a dynasty change with the Romanovs, but NO, the Hapsburgs did not undergo a dynasty change about the same time, because of the Thirty Years' War, am I missing something here? The male Habsburg line continued until 1740 and the accession of Maria Theresa, and then the Roman Emperors were Habsburg-Lothringen until 1806, when the Empire was dissolved, and they became Emperors of Austria until 1918.



Silveryou said:


> But this is the only primary source we have, the rest being just historians' words. Sorry if I am a nuisance but I would like to see these genealogies before saying the Habsburgs were actually doing 'propaganda'.


I showed you before how Maximilian obtained those genealogies, but you apparently did not accept that from "Your Majesty"  Fictitious Habsburg Genealogies genealogy project  Note the section below, with my comments, and please remember that, Yes, I have distant connections to the Habsburgs, and would personally love to see the truth of these Julius Caesar/Merovingian genealogies for them. I am not on the "side" of the academics/historians, or of anybody for that matter, I am simply an independent amateur genealogist, who is trying to remain impartial, and consider ALL "sources" for a grain of truth -


"Trojans and Merovingians​Maximilian I launched a search for his family's origins, and promoted the production of illuminated manuscripts, illustrated genealogies, and treatises on heraldry. In 1498 he commissioned Dr. Konrad Turst in Zurich to search for documents in the family's Swiss homeland. He also engaged many of the leading scholars of his age as consultants, including Konrad CELTIS, Johannes Cuspinianus Johannes Cuspinian - Wikipedia , Konrad Peutinger Konrad Peutinger - Wikipedia, Willibald Pirckheimer Willibald Pirckheimer - Wikipedia, and Johannes Johannes Stabius - Wikipedia , as well as Abbot TRITHEMIUS, and his own historiographers Jakob Mennel (Manlius) Jakob Mennel – Wikipedia  and Ladislaus Sunthaim Ladislaus Sunthaym - Wikipedia (looks like an impressive resume, but many of these men were what you would call HUMANISTS).

In his earlier years Maximilian was inclined to accept the Pierleoni descent. Later, he FAVORED research that showed he was a descendant of the ancient Trojan kings through the Merovingians. The French kings claimed the same origin, but their line went through the Carolingian usurpers. CLAIMING a different version of the same line allowed Maximilian to present himself as the legitimate heir of the ancient kingdoms of Gaul and Germany, and provided a justification for his territorial expansion into France and Burgundy (looks like Maximilian was picking and choosing his "genealogies" for propaganda and dynastic purposes, or am I wrong?).

There were variations of the Trojan line, even during Maximilian's lifetime. One version traced the line back to the Trojan hero Hector ("magnanimous" Hector was mentioned on the Arch inscription, correct?). Maximilian had this line published in a book prepared for Charles VIII of France when he was trying to convince Charles to marry his daughter (more propaganda to achieve an end for him?). Other versions took the line back to the Egyptian god Osiris and to the biblical Noah. Konrad CELTIS (listed in the first paragraph) went a different direction -- he traced the Habsburgs back to the Norse god Tuisco, the ancestor of the Teutons." It looks as though Celtis was considered a "humanist", though, trying to create a strictly German pedigree for his Emperor and patron, Maximilian. Conrad Celtes - Wikipedia

Here is the following Merovingian pedigree, from that original article, down to Clovis, that Abbot TRITHEMIUS (also listed in that first paragraph) worked on and provided for Maximilian from 1495-1503, many years before his 1515 Arch of Glory was created. However, Maximilian only went back in his male line to Clovis on that same Arch, even though he could have gone 46 more generations before him. WHY THEN, wasn't this "primary source" good enough for him? Maybe that is why it is not good enough for you either?  Abbot Trithemius was another humanist, who inserted some fictional passages into his works, according to some scholars, thus "tainting" his reputation. However, to be fair and impartial, Wikipedia says this statement has failed verification. Johannes Trithemius - Wikipedia

"1, Marcomir. 2. Anthenor. 3. Priamus. 4. Helenus. 5. Diocles. 6. Helenus. 7. Basanus. 8. Chlodomer. 9. Nicanor. 10. Marcomir. 11. Clodius. 12. Anthenor. 13. Clodomer. 14. Merodach. 15. Cassander. 16. Ancharius. 17. Franco (um Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung). 18. Clogius. 19. Herimer. 20. Marcomir. 21. Clodomir. 22. Anthenor. 23. Ratterius. 24. Richimer. 25. Odemar. 26. Marcomir. 27. Clodomer. 28. Favabert. 29. Sunno. 30. Childerich. 31. Berthar. 32. Clodius. 33. Walther. 34. Dagobert. 35. Clogio (died 309). 36. Clodomer. 37. Richimer. 38. Thedemer. 39. Clogio. 40. Marcomir. 41. Dagobert (died 385). 42. Genebald. 43. Faramund. 44. Clodius. 45. Merovech. 46. Childerich. 47. Chlodevech usw. (_Chronicon Hirsaugiense_)"

See pages 200-202 below for an opinion on the interest and motivation of Maximilian for his Habsburg genealogy. It was Stabius who found the descent from Hercules Lybius/Osiris/Ham/Noah, near the end of the life of Maximilian (Footnote 34, bottom of page 201).

Historia and Fabula

However, the author, Peter G. Bietenholz, is yet another HUMANIST ACADEMIC!   Bietenholz, Peter G. - MemorySask


----------



## Safranek (Nov 14, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> In his earlier years Maximilian was inclined to accept the Pierleoni descent.



My money is on the Peirleonis. ;-)



Fawkes said:


> (looks like Maximilian was picking and choosing his "genealogies" for propaganda and dynastic purposes, or am I wrong?).



It sure looks that way, doesn't it. If it looks like a duck...

Sometimes, I prefer common sense to original sources. You can counterfeit original sources but not common sense.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 15, 2021)

Safranek said:


> My money is on the Peirleonis. ;-)               ...Sometimes, I prefer common sense to original sources.



You mean the "real" Jewish male line, as opposed to the "fake" Roman line of these Pierleoni?

Take a look at this below.  They say DNA does not lie, but the "PRESUMED" cluster of ancient German nobility, and the "PROBABLY"* R1b-DF90 y-Haplogroup* bother my "common sense"! 

 "Guntram (Graf) im BREISGAU

aka Guntrum `der Reiche' (`the Rich'); Count of MURI; (Guntram's descent from the Etichonen "MAY" have been fabricated to link the Houses of HABSBURG and LORRAINE; DNA EVIDENCE "SUGGESTS" the two Houses were in fact agnatic cousins, and links them to a certain "PRESUMED" cluster of ancient German nobility) [Me - MAKE UP YOUR MIND!!! Where is THEIR "common sense"? ]
     Born:  Metz abt. 904    Died:  aft. 973

Source:       *prob. R1b-DF90 y-Haplogroup*"

Pedigree: Guntram (Graf) im BREISGAU

From   Etichonids - Wikipedia - "The *Etichonids* were an important noble family, probably of Frankish, Burgundian or Visigothic origin". In other words, they were PROBABLY (there's that word again!) of GERMAN origin. So were the Habsburgs male line Etichonen Germans after all, or are the waters still too muddy? Is DNA considered to be a "primary source"? I suppose there might be a privacy issue, but my "common sense" tells me that I would still like to know who donated the DNA sample that matched Guntram.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 15, 2021)

I'm afraid I'm a dreadful dunce when it comes to charts and maths. I don't understand what I'm looking at in the charts above, I don't get the seemingly arbitrary diagonal lines. The two left and right halves of the charts look symmetrical, but the dates don't match on the diagonal 'nodes'. What does the horizontal distance from the centre line represent?

Thanking you in anticipation.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 15, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> I don't understand what I'm looking at in the charts above, I don't get the seemingly arbitrary diagonal lines. The two left and right halves of the charts look symmetrical, but the dates don't match on the diagonal 'nodes'. What does the horizontal distance from the centre line represent?


You mean the Fomenko charts? He is comparing the reign lengths and dating of Russian and Habsburg rulers, in order to match them as the same person in his theory, by the length of those reigns around the same period of time. For instance, right at the top on that last chart, Dmitry I would be the same person as Rudolf Habsburg, in his estimation, because they both reigned 18 years at about the same period of time. That is why the left and right halves are symmetrical to the middle. He is also trying to match the years in which they ruled, but this is all approximate, not a perfect reign or date match in every case (Fomenko has been criticized for "forcing" the reign dates to match). The longest reigns to match, though the dates are off by comparison, as you can easily see, are Russian Ivan III and Habsburg Friedrich III, at 53 years, because of the immense spread of those diagonal lines from the center line, when you look at them, as a visual aid. By comparison, just above them, see how small the spread is between the approximate length and date years of Dmitry Shemyaka (1446-1450, 4 years) and Albert the Austrian (1438-1440, 2 years), not a perfect match, as you can see. Those diagonal lines also connect those rulers to each other, in sequence, to make a graph out of it. Hope this helps, and by the way, you of course don't have to believe it, if it makes no sense to you.  


Fawkes said:


> I would still like to know who donated the DNA sample that matched Guntram


I have found the DNA tester, and he thinks he is a Habsburg descendant by circumstantial evidence - http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~hoppes/OURGENETICGENEALOGYEXTENDEDFAMILYA.html
He says that, "contrary to earlier belief, the royal Habsburg line appears to have evolved from Celtic warriors with the relatively common Haplogroup R1b1b2a1b who entered Switzerland from the east after the last Ice Age and began their rise to riches and notoriety in the late 900s."


----------



## Safranek (Nov 15, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> He says that, "contrary to earlier belief, the royal Habsburg line appears to have evolved from Celtic warriors with the relatively common Haplogroup R1b1b2a1b who entered Switzerland from the east after the last Ice Age and began their rise to riches and notoriety in the late 900s."



His 'science' and 'honesty' seem to prove that the Arch genealogy is accurate. There's your primary source. ;-)

While researching the Habsburgs and looking at the paintings of them generation by generation, the first thing that popped into my mind also was.... Celtic Warriors.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 15, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I showed you before how Maximilian obtained those genealogies, but you apparently did not accept that from "Your Majesty"  Fictitious Habsburg Genealogies genealogy project


It's probably my English. It's too bad. I am trying to explain that mentioning historians' opinions is pretty much useless, since they have inherited their set-in-stone narrative by the _first_ _humanists_ who have passed down our current history through academia. An so the website you take these long narratives from _mentions _the sources but it actually doesn't show them.
When you look at those mentions you also can clearly see that they have been inscribed in the current narrative. For example the _Chronik der 95 Herrschaften (Chronicle of 95 Seigneurs) by Leopold of Vienna _(Leopold von Wien – Wikipedia) were *probably *commissioned by the Austrian Duke Albrecht III. *PROBABLY!!!*
In fact on that same wiki it is said that these _Chronicles _are part of the _Monumenta Germaniae Historica_, originated from the _Society for Older German History_, founded in 1819 (Monumenta Germaniae Historica – Wikipedia), some years after the end of the Holy Roman Empire and the direct line of the Habsburgs gone extinct. The Privilegium Maius was confirmed to be a fake (!!!) in the 19th century, 6 centuries after Petrarch (!!!), by Wilhelm Wattenbach (Wilhelm Wattenbach - Wikipedia), member of the directing body of the _Monumenta Germaniae Historica._

Do you see the conflict of interests?



Fawkes said:


> See pages 200-202 below for an opinion on the interest and motivation of Maximilian for his Habsburg genealogy. It was Stabius who found the descent from Hercules Lybius/Osiris/Ham/Noah, near the end of the life of Maximilian (Footnote 34, bottom of page 201).





Again you can see in these footnotes that the people who are telling the story are modern historians grown in the cult of humanism. When you actually read the _real _primary sources you always confront akward narratives whcih historians just fail to see or just close their eyes keeping them under silence.

Silence is the strongest ally to modern history. When you read actual primary sources you immediately start to realize that modern History is a construct born during the so called Renaissance. Those sources always tell a different story.



Will Scarlet said:


> I'm afraid I'm a dreadful dunce when it comes to charts and maths. I don't understand what I'm looking at in the charts above, I don't get the seemingly arbitrary diagonal lines. The two left and right halves of the charts look symmetrical, but the dates don't match on the diagonal 'nodes'. What does the horizontal distance from the centre line represent?
> 
> Thanking you in anticipation. ​


It's called 'Method of form-codes'. I wouldn't do it justice by describing it myself. Better if you take your 15 minutes and read it on your own here (History, Fiction Or Science?).

By the way @Safranek, did you looked at his one (Biblical matters according to Biglino)?

Edit for @Will Scarlet: the 'method for recognition of dependent chronicle dynasties' is described here (History, Fiction Or Science?)


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 15, 2021)

Safranek said:


> His 'science' and 'honesty' seem to prove that the Arch genealogy is accurate. There's your primary source. ;-)


So you agree with Silveryou then? The Trojan/Sicambrian migration depicted on the Arch = Anatolian/Central European migration of the Celtic/Trojan warriors?


Silveryou said:


> But this is the only primary source we have, the rest being just historians' words.


Do you think that tentative DNA results can = the "primary source" of the Arch?


----------



## Safranek (Nov 15, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I am trying to explain that mentioning historians' opinions is pretty much useless, since they have inherited their set-in-stone narrative by the _first_ _humanists_ who have passed down our current history through academia. An so the website you take these long narratives from _mentions _the sources but it actually doesn't show them.



I agree with most of your points with the exception of one. I would not lump ALL historians into that category, I always try to find sources from those researchers who were snubbed by the mainstream for one reason or another. Then I try to assess WHY they were excluded from the pack. For instance, look at all the scientists (historians, linguists, archeologists, geneticists, etc.) who have done great research challenging the mainstream narratives. These include those from the top of academia as well as many who are considered amateur researchers who have done a far superior job in their research to many who are considered to be mainstream academics.



Silveryou said:


> By the way @Safranek, did you looked at his one (Biblical matters according to Biglino)?



No, I didn't get the notification so I hadn't seen it until now, glad you mentioned it. It was an interesting watch with highly revealing information. I like that guy, I'm glad there is a subtitles option. I don't understand why everyone from non-English channels does not apply that option.

That topic actually also ties into @Catalyst 's Lost Keys thread also as it refers to the Ark as some electromagnetic device.

I have some info coming (as time permits) that ties into Habsburg genealogy topic which I haven't posted yet as I have not had the time to confirm the info by looking up the sources (they were not mentioned). I have been going through the history of the Venetian families and have hit a 'dead end' with respect to primary sources on the one hand, and major clues on the other.

It would be useful to you to read the *Scythia to Maghreb* thread or watch the video and digest some of that info for reference. I was just as blown away by that info as I was by the* France - Biblical Israel* thread in the way that if both of them are even half true, the implications in both are overwhelming.

I haven't had time to read all the posts in that thread by Sasyexa, in which he's been diligently translating lost of new info from Russian sources. Its on my list though, as the coincidences there are also overwhelming. Until now, I've been trying to look at info regarding those times according to Fomenko's theories, but I'm starting to suspect that there isn't a missing 1000 years, just about 300 as Illiq had discovered. So this would indicate that the Biblical times would have occurred before the century targeted by Fomenko.



Fawkes said:


> So you agree with Silveryou then? The Trojan/Sicambrian migration depicted on the Arch = Anatolian/Central European migration of the Celtic/Trojan warriors?



From what I've read of Silveryou's comments, I don't think its written in stone for him, as he mentioned, he's developed a 'fetish' for them and when you have a fetish, your desire obviously pulls you into that direction.

As I put both the words 'science' and 'honesty' in quotes, it denoted a polite sarcasm towards the subject, meaning that he's probably far from both IMHO. Also, I put a wink-mark after the primary source comment on top of that, but I guess you missed it. 

Regarding my Celtic Warrior comment... it was further sarcasm which I guess you'd understand more clearly if you actually took 10 contemporary paintings of Celtic/Gaul/Scythian/Goth/Hun/etc. warriors and put them side-by-side with those of 10 generations of Habsburgs. If you've watched Sesame Street it would remind you of the old.... 'One of these things is not like the other' bits.

On a serious note, Pierleone is the likely genealogy according to my research although I'm having a hard time finding the original sources to tie things neatly together. In a nutshell, according to my research, the Venetian bankers controlled ALL European trade including the currencies (with minor temporary exceptions - like Charlemagne for example) and they were notorious for doing things within the families. They did have internal wars but those were and stayed internal for the most part.

I started with this:

Financial Vipers of Venice: Alchemical Money, Magical Physics, and Banking in the Middle Ages and Renaissance

And the rabbit-hole goes deep.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Pierleone is the likely genealogy according to my research although I'm having a hard time finding the original sources to tie things neatly together.


If you accept the revised male line descent of the Pierleoni from the Exilarchs and House of David, Guntram the Rich (d. 973) was born when they were still back in Iraq/Israel, and thus was a Jewish immigrant to central Europe in the 10th century. How likely is that? UNLESS, as David Hughes speculates, Guntram could have been "a descendant of a "desposynic" descent-line settled in the Swiss canton of Aargau, near present day Zurich, sometime in the fourth century during the persecution of the "Desposyni" [= descendants of Jesus' so-called "brothers" referred to by St. Matthew 13:55], and was prestigious enough to marry female members of the imperial Roman nobility, and later female members of the Merovingians of France and Germany, and, during the period of the Holy Roman Empire married female members of the Etichoni of Alsace, the Colonna of Tuscany, and the Pierleoni of Aventine." Sort of like what the Pierleoni did.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 16, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> The Trojan/Sicambrian migration depicted on the Arch = Anatolian/Central European migration of the Celtic/Trojan warriors?


My primary concern is the far too easy way to approach the matter throgh the lens of modern history. I never mentioned the equation of Troyans/Sicambrians with Celtic tribes, simply because Celts are not mentioned on the Arch and I would ask you to explain me from what moment in time the word Celt was being used in Western Europe to describe people living there! And how one should connect them to the Troyans? In my opinion this is just a reflection of a change in language happening during the Renaissance and popularized later in time.


Fawkes said:


> Do you think that tentative DNA results can = the "primary source" of the Arch?


I think that DNA results are subject to interpretation like everything else. You put side by side 'Celtic warriors' with Haplogroup R1b1b2a1b, but the question remains about who these warriors really were. And another problem is the one regarding historians doing research with common historians' mindset. All the final results could be corrupted by the interpretation, the lens, through which they analyse raw data, therefore giving us a distorted history.


Safranek said:


> I would not lump ALL historians into that category


Yes, for sure. I am talking about the historians who blindly follow the common narrative.


Safranek said:


> Until now, I've been trying to look at info regarding those times according to Fomenko's theories, but I'm starting to suspect that there isn't a missing 1000 years, just about 300 as Illiq had discovered. So this would indicate that the Biblical times would have occurred before the century targeted by Fomenko.


I totally think the same. The 'dark ages' following the 'fall of Rome' are in my opinion the epoch of legends and myths. About the 300 years by Illig I would suggest you to read my thread about the year 248 AD (247 years). It seems that it was considered the true starting point of our chronology, unless the 2/3/4 coincidences described in that thread and its posts are just a mere casuality, which I think it's absurd.

Edit: ...and by the way, Fomenko NEVER talks about 1000 years _missing_. This is a fantasy grown on the internet by misinterpreting his books. Fomenko simply says that recorded and actually verifiable history (in some measure) _begins _1000 years ago, which is an entirely different thing! From his point of view there are about 4000 years 'missing' (or never existing in the first place, he would say), if we consider the accepted 'datings' of 'ancient' Egypt starting about 3000 BC.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 16, 2021)

Safranek said:


> Pierleone is the likely genealogy according to my research although I'm having a hard time finding the original sources to tie things neatly together.


The following is only from a novel, "Veritas: The Thrilling Sequel to Secretum", by Rita Monaldi & Francesco Sorti, but I find it relevant and interesting as to how this alliance MIGHT have occurred - "Albert the Wise descended from Alberto Pierleoni, Count of Mount Aventine, ...... Having moved from Rome to Switzerland, Alberto Pierleoni had married the daughter of Werner, last Count of Habsburg, thus founding the dynastic line, Habsburg-Pierleoni."


Safranek said:


> according to my research, the Venetian bankers controlled ALL European trade including the currencies (with minor temporary exceptions - like Charlemagne for example) and they were notorious for doing things within the families.


Just from memory, unfortunately I don't have the reference, but I read about a woman whose mother was a Pierleoni, and she said basically the same thing about her Pierleoni family as you did, that they controlled banking and trade, and also founded two lines of the Habsburgs through marriage.
​


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 16, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> only from a novel, "Veritas: The Thrilling Sequel to Secretum", by Rita Monaldi & Francesco Sorti


History is written by novelists, _that _I always knew. These two's biographies are full of names I don't like. It seems a gathering of covid-maniacs.



_*Francesco Sorti


*_​


----------



## Safranek (Nov 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Fomenko NEVER talks about 1000 years _missing_.



I should have been clearer, what I meant was that I was looking at the 12th century occurrences in European history for clues regarding the *France - Biblical Israel* thread. I will go back to read the rest of what @Sasyexa posted by that Russian researcher to look for more clues.



Silveryou said:


> I would suggest you to read my thread about the year 248 AD (247 years).



It seems I've been missing out on some relevant threads not yet on my watch list, thanks again for the mention.



Fawkes said:


> Just from memory, unfortunately I don't have the reference, but I read about a woman whose mother was a Pierleoni, and she said basically the same thing about her Pierleoni family as you did, that they controlled banking and trade, and also founded two lines of the Habsburgs through marriage.



It wasn't just the Pierleonis, it was a whole group of inter-connected oligarchs. They seem to have acquired control of world trade and eventually infiltrated the European nations via their intelligence service(s).

Which led me to look further in to their origins and I stumbled upon this possibility/probability:

Radhanite - Wikipedia

The question is:

What is the relation between the Venetian bankers and the Rhadanites, if any? According to 'historical' sources the Rhadanites 'disappeared'. The Venetian bankers just appeared out of nowhere.

Similarly in 'history', the Scythians just disappeared and suddenly Tartarians  appeared.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It's called 'Method of form-codes'. I wouldn't do it justice by describing it myself. Better if you take your 15 minutes and read it on your own here (History, Fiction Or Science?).



...more homework 



Fawkes said:


> Hope this helps



It does... well, enough to skip homework - thank you.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 16, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I never mentioned the equation of Troyans/Sicambrians with Celtic tribes, simply because Celts are not mentioned on the Arch and I would ask you to explain me from what moment in time the word Celt was being used in Western Europe to describe people living there! And how one should connect them to the Troyans?


I phrased this badly, as I was actually asking a question, could Trojan/Sicambrians be equated with the Central European Celts, to reconcile them with what that DNA tester was saying about "Celtic warriors" being the true ancestors of the Habsburgs?


Silveryou said:


> History is written by novelists, _that _I always knew. These two's biographies are full of names I don't like. It seems a gathering of covid-maniacs.


I have read that this couple are not popular in Italy.


Fawkes said:


> Here is the following Merovingian pedigree, from that original article, down to Clovis, that Abbot TRITHEMIUS (also listed in that first paragraph) worked on and provided for Maximilian from 1495-1503, many years before his 1515 Arch of Glory was created. However, Maximilian only went back in his male line to Clovis on that same Arch, even though he could have gone 46 more generations before him. WHY THEN, wasn't this "primary source" good enough for him? Maybe that is why it is not good enough for you either? Abbot Trithemius was another humanist, who inserted some fictional passages into his works, according to some scholars, thus "tainting" his reputation. However, to be fair and impartial, Wikipedia says this statement has failed verification. Johannes Trithemius - Wikipedia


Again, I do not understand, if the Arch of Glory is the "primary source", why Maximilian did also not portray on it the 46 preceding ancestors of Clovis, that Abbot Trithemius had found for him?


Fawkes said:


> It was Stabius who found the descent from Hercules Lybius/Osiris/Ham/Noah, near the end of the life of Maximilian


I understand why Maximilian did not put this beginning part on his Arch, and take his ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve, as at this time his Arch had already been completed several years previously. However, those 46 ancestors of Clovis were found by Trithemius years before the Arch was even started, and could have been put upon it. ???


Safranek said:


> On a serious note, Pierleone is the likely genealogy according to my research


At the time Maximilian was considering this genealogy, though, he thought the Pierleoni family were Roman, not Jewish. When it was finally found out for sure that they were really Jewish, the Habsburgs were ridiculed.


Safranek said:


> It wasn't just the Pierleonis, it was a whole group of inter-connected oligarchs.


Yes, in the case of Maximilian, the Fuggers backed him up, and they also founded manufactories in Venice. Like the Venetian bankers, they "just appeared out of nowhere."


Will Scarlet said:


> It does... well, enough to skip homework - thank you.


You're welcome, where there's a "Will" there's a way! 


Safranek said:


> It wasn't just the Pierleonis, it was a whole group of inter-connected oligarchs. They seem to have acquired control of world trade and eventually infiltrated the European nations via their intelligence service(s). The Venetian bankers just appeared out of nowhere.



"The Pierleoni initially appear in the documentary record in 1051,when Anacletus’s grandfather Leo filio Benedicti Christiani
 was granted a land concession by the monastery of SS. Cosma e Damiano in Mica Aurea. Already Leo was identified as vir magnifcus et laud 
-abilis negotiator, an elite status confirmed a decade later in legal proceedings concerning the castellum of Arci, in which he was the second of thirty-five lay witnesses. Even in AN ERA IN WHICH THE COINCIDENCE OF THE RISE OF NEW ARISTOCRATIC FAMILIES (my emphasis) with a multiplication of surviving documents means that MANY FAMILIES APPEAR SEEMINGLY FROM NOWHERE (again my emphasis), the Pierleoni’s emergence at the vertices of Roman society is striking. Given the evidence for the involvement of other new families in commerce and the Pierleoni’s Jewish origins, finance and trade, and in particular the exceedingly lucrative maritime trade with the Fatimid caliphate, are the most likely sources of their wealth."

 From "ANACLETUS II, THE PIERLEONI,AND THE REBUILDING OF ROME, ca. 1070-1150", (2018) pages 38-39, by Alison Locke Perchuk, Associate Professor of Art, specializing in the history of medieval art and architecture in Italy and the Mediterranean.  2018–19 Member, School of Historical Studies, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton NJ. 2016 Paul Mellon Visiting Senior Fellow, Center for Advanced Study in the Visual Arts, National Gallery of Art, Washington DC.  PhD Yale University; MA The Catholic University of America; BA Williams College.

The Pierleoni, despite their faked Roman Fabii descent, did marry into aristocratic Roman families, and supposedly the Habsburg and Norman Hauteville families too. Besides having Pope Anacletus as a proven member of their family, Popes Gregory VI and Gregory VII are also supposed to be related to them, albeit controversially so. Gregory VI purchased the papacy from his godson, Benedict IX, of the powerful family, the Theophylacti, Counts of Tusculum. The Colonna family, another branch of the Counts of Tusculum, were also among the claimed ancestors of the Habsburgs, along with the Pierleoni (family interconnection here?). Gregory VII, one of the greatest of Popes, also became a saint, and was a prominent champion of papal supremacy.

The true male line ancestry of the Pierleoni is supposed to be from the Jewish Exilarchs and King David, unless this is another fairy tale, of course. 


Fawkes said:


> I phrased this badly, as I was actually asking a question, could Trojan/Sicambrians be equated with the Central European Celts, to reconcile them with what that DNA tester was saying about "Celtic warriors" being the true ancestors of the Habsburgs?
> 
> I have read that this couple are not popular in Italy.
> 
> ...


"the Theophylacti, Counts of Tusculum. The Colonna family, another branch of the Counts of Tusculum, were also among the claimed ancestors of the Habsburgs, along with the Pierleoni (family interconnection here?)."
From the above Theophylacti, Counts of Tusculum, Wikipedia article about them - "According to tradition, the successors of the Tusculum counts were the Colonna family, founded by Peter (1099–1151), son of Gregory II and called Peter "de Columna" from his fief of Colonna, east of Rome." 
"Further back, they (the Colonna family) trace their lineage past the Counts of Tusculum via Lombard and Italo-Roman nobles, merchants, and clergy through the Early Middle Ages — ultimately claiming origins from the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the gens Julia". Colonna family - Wikipedia


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 17, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Fomenko simply says that recorded and actually verifiable history (in some measure) _begins _1000 years ago


I find it intriguing that Habsburg Castle was built about 1020 by Radbot, grandson of family founder Guntram the Rich. He also established the Muri Abbey in 1027, which gave us the earliest known Habsburg pedigree, written about 1160, in the _Acta Murensius, which says Guntram_ was a son of Theodebert, king of Helvetia and Alemannia. The only "King" Theodebert that I could find were two Merovingian kings, that lived three to four centuries before the time of Guntram. As I mentioned before, "Guntram" too was a Merovingian king, who lived several centuries before Guntram the Rich was born. So did "history" begin with the Habsburgs?


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 17, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I find it intriguing that Habsburg Castle was built about 1020 by Radbot,


If you don't mind, how did you establish the veracity of this build date for yourself?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 17, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> If you don't mind, how did you establish the veracity of this build date for yourself?


Every encyclopedia, book, internet site, that I have ever read says about the same thing. Here is an article on the history and location of the castle - The cradle of the Habsburgs Regardless of Fomenko's verifiable history hypothesis beginning 1000 years ago, this essay appears to run parallel with it, in a natural climatic way, stating "That period spans most of what we now call the Medieval Warm Period of climate (950-1250), a period that seems to have been very congenial to human life and culture during which Europeans emerged from the cold 'Dark Ages' to enjoy two centuries of generally clement weather." The beginning of the above-mentioned "Medieval Warm Period of climate" also coincides with the first documentation of Habsburg family founder Guntram the Rich (the grandfather of the castle builder, Radbot) in 952, emerging from the unknown mists of history. If there are alternative facts on the dating of the castle, I would love to see them, as I seriously never have yet.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 17, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Every encyclopedia, book, internet site, that I have ever read says about the same thing. Here is an article on the history and location of the castle - The cradle of the Habsburgs  Fomenko's verifiable history hypothesis beginning 1000 years ago notwithstanding, this essay appears to run parallel with it, in a natural climatic way, stating "That period spans most of what we now call the Medieval Warm Period of climate (950-1250), a period that seems to have been very congenial to human life and culture during which Europeans emerged from the cold 'Dark Ages' to enjoy two centuries of generally clement weather."


Thanks.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 17, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Thanks.


You are quite welcome. I am new here, and it is my pleasure if I am able to make a contribution to this interesting site.


Silveryou said:


> Fomenko simply says that recorded and actually verifiable history (in some measure) _begins _1000 years ago,


In a genetic way, that may be correct for everyone living on this planet now. It has been said that all of us have the same ancestors from about a thousand years ago, and that the split into our individual family ancestry began about that time. If this is true, then each personal "history" of ours began around 1000 AD.


Fawkes said:


> The cradle of the Habsburgs Regardless of Fomenko's verifiable history hypothesis beginning 1000 years ago, this essay appears to run parallel with it, in a natural climatic way, stating "That period spans most of what we now call the Medieval Warm Period of climate (950-1250), a period that seems to have been very congenial to human life and culture during which Europeans emerged from the cold 'Dark Ages' to enjoy two centuries of generally clement weather." The beginning of the above-mentioned "Medieval Warm Period of climate" also coincides with the first documentation of Habsburg family founder Guntram the Rich (the grandfather of the castle builder, Radbot) in 952, emerging from the unknown mists of history.


Also from The cradle of the Habsburgs - "We can truly speak of this period as a breakthrough time for civilisation in Europe." With the Habsburg family leading the way, instead of the Russian rulers that Fomenko identifies with the Habsburg Emperors? Is it possible that the Habsburgs wrote (or rewrote) history from about 1000 AD on, using their own foundation story of Guntram the Rich with the grandson building Habsburg Castle, and that the Arch of Glory for Emperor Maximilian reflects this? Was the Habsburg family founder "Guntram the Rich" really the Merovingian King Guntram, and his supposed father Theodebert a Merovingian King before him? Is this what Maximilian is trying to tell us on his Arch, by listing his Habsburg ancestors generation by generation back to the Merovingian King Clovis, but cutting it off there, even though 46 more "ancestors" before Clovis, in the male line, had been "discovered" by then? Is Maximilian on that Arch proclaiming that he is actually the Emperor of the World, or is he simply behaving as a megalomaniacal "Mad Max"?


Fawkes said:


> Is it possible that the Habsburgs wrote (or rewrote) history from about 1000 AD on, using their own foundation story of Guntram the Rich with the grandson building Habsburg Castle, and that the Arch of Glory for Emperor Maximilian reflects this?


What makes me say this is that at Maximilian's family "tree" on his Arch, I see they have a "Theodebertus" Merovingian King, besides a couple of "Guntrammus", ancestors, with a "Radepoto" (who built Habsburg Castle around 1020) as the grandson of the latter one.


Fawkes said:


> You are quite welcome. I am new here, and it is my pleasure if I am able to make a contribution to this interesting site.
> 
> In a genetic way, that may be correct for everyone living on this planet now. It has been said that all of us have the same ancestors from about a thousand years ago, and that the split into our individual family ancestry began about that time. If this is true, then each personal "history" of ours began around 1000 AD.
> 
> ...


I never really studied Fomenko until I joined this site, and have none of his books. Does he mention anything about the Merovingians, and compare their kings to Russian (or other) rulers in different time frames, or does he ignore them in his theories?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 18, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> the earliest known Habsburg pedigree, written about 1160, in the _Acta Murensius, which says Guntram_ was a son of Theodebert, king of Helvetia and Alemannia. The only "King" Theodebert that I could find were two Merovingian kings, that lived three to four centuries before the time of Guntram.


Ah, in 1627, during the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II,  the great-great-grandson of Maximilian I, 
Hans Ulrich Fisch (1583-1647) produced an abbreviated family tree and record of the coat of arms of the Habsburg (Hapsburg) dynasty rulers. Fisch was a stained glass painter, book illustrator and local politician in the northern Swiss town of Aarau in the canton of Aargau.
Aargau is significant because the 11th century castle in the small town of Habsburg gave rise to the name (and original family seat) of the mighty Habsburg royal dynasty which ruled significant portions of Europe for more than five hundred years.
It has (1) King Sigebert of Austrasia (AD 630), a male line descendant of the Merovingian King Clovis, as the father of (2) Theodebert, king of Helvetia and Alemannia. He is supposed to be the father of (3) A FIRST Guntram (not the later Guntram the Rich), and then the male line goes down as (4) Sigebert (5) Otbert (6) Bebo (7) Robert (8) Ethobert (9) Balbon (10) Landolt (11) Rampert (12) Guntram the Rich.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 19, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Again, I do not understand, if the Arch of Glory is the "primary source", why Maximilian did also not portray on it the 46 preceding ancestors of Clovis, that Abbot Trithemius had found for him?


I don't understand what it is you don't understand. It's all explained in the introdution to the Arch. And what about the Trithemius' work? Have you read it?


Fawkes said:


> "Further back, they (the Colonna family) trace their lineage past the Counts of Tusculum via Lombard and Italo-Roman nobles, merchants, and clergy *through the **Early Middle Ages* — ultimately claiming origins from the Julio-Claudian dynasty and the gens Julia"


The Middle-Ages is a concept established by Petrarch and Biondo, the first working for the Colonnas, so this kind of assertions are quite bizarre.


Fawkes said:


> I find it intriguing that Habsburg Castle was built about 1020 by Radbot





kd-755 said:


> If you don't mind, how did you establish the veracity of this build date for yourself?


kd-755 has the same questions I have. What kind of original document tells about this castle being built in 1020 by Radbot? And if there is no document, why should I believe in a reconstruction done but God knows who?


Fawkes said:


> Every encyclopedia, book, internet site, that I have ever read says about the same thing. Here is an article on the history and location of the castle - The cradle of the Habsburgs





Fawkes said:


> If there are alternative facts on the dating of the castle, I would love to see them, as I seriously never have yet.


People generally believe in these huge summaries with many catchy photos and videos. I don't! Maybe I'm the only one in the world. The link you provide doesn't seem to give the primary sources upon which History is built, which is what I'm interested into. In those documents should be given the date of construction, otherwise it's a deduction or conjecture made by some unnamed historian and teached as fact... because no one is in any case interested in verifying the sources and the claims!


Fawkes said:


> What makes me say this is that at Maximilian's family "tree" on his Arch, I see they have a "Theodebertus" Merovingian King, besides a couple of "Guntrammus", ancestors, with a "Radepoto" (who built Habsburg Castle around 1020) as the grandson of the latter one.


I appreciate your attention to these details, but are you sure the basis from which you start is really firm to solid ground?


Fawkes said:


> I never really studied Fomenko until I joined this site, and have none of his books. Does he mention anything about the Merovingians, and compare their kings to Russian (or other) rulers in different time frames, or does he ignore them in his theories?


I don't remember him talking too much about the Merovingians in his 'History Fiction...' books. Maybe just few words. This is a graph about the Carolingians.



​By the way Fawkes, this Arch has a list of ancestors. Can you provide the identity of each one of them with a Wiki page for reference (like I did in the OP)? Thanks a lot. I'm talking about this 'list', from bottom to top:


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 19, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> this Arch has a list of ancestors. Can you provide the identity of each one of them with a Wiki page for reference


If this Arch is the "primary source", as you say, why would you trust any Wiki identities of them? I thought that was the original point you were trying to make on this thread.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 19, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> If this Arch is the "primary source", as you say, why would you trust any Wiki identities of them? I thought that was the original point you were trying to make on this thread.


Because we have the possibility to eventually compare the current view on these characters with the role given to them on the Arch. A huge example is the one I mentioned before: Philip the Arab is called Philip the Christian on the Arch, and that leads to other eventual thoughts (247 years). I am obviously interested in the nicknames too! The coat of arms are important too. Maybe you can spot some differences from the ones commonly attributed to these characters.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 19, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Because we have the possibility to eventually compare the current view on these characters with the role given to them on the Arch.


I see, but I must warn you in advance, you are going to be disappointed, as some of these "ancestors" have no Wiki biographies, since they are considered by humanist/historians (whatever you want to call them) as fantasies. Of course, on that Arch, "Troia", "Sycambria", and "Francia" are meant to be representations for groups of peoples, not people themselves, so I might start with the first actually considered "historical" person, Clovis.
By the way, if I may ask you, you have mentioned that you are from Italy. Have you ever personally researched in your native area for ancient sources, I would think that would be very interesting for you.


Silveryou said:


> In those documents should be given the date of construction, otherwise it's a deduction or conjecture made by some unnamed historian and teached as fact... because no one is in any case interested in verifying the sources and the claims!


Again, I repeat, seriously, "If there are alternative facts on the dating of the castle, I would love to see them, as I seriously never have yet." I guess what you are trying to say is, that myself and the rest of the world have been brainwashed by the "Illuminati". OK, but what alternative for the Habsburg Castle dating do you propose, and why? I thought 1020 was pretty close to the start date of recorded history in 1000, if you believe in that, and then we have the Habsburgs establishing the Muri Abbey in 1027, where their first history and genealogy were created. How much closer to the year 1000 do you want it to be? Maybe the Habsburgs, instead of the Russians, worked out all of this time shifting in their castle, like Frankenstein creating new life in his castle!  Is that what you want me to believe? As I stated before-


Fawkes said:


> Here is an article on the history and location of the castle - The cradle of the Habsburgs Regardless of Fomenko's verifiable history hypothesis beginning 1000 years ago, this essay appears to run parallel with it, in a natural climatic way, stating "That period spans most of what we now call the Medieval Warm Period of climate (950-1250), a period that seems to have been very congenial to human life and culture during which Europeans emerged from the cold 'Dark Ages' to enjoy two centuries of generally clement weather." The beginning of the above-mentioned "Medieval Warm Period of climate" also coincides with the first documentation of Habsburg family founder Guntram the Rich (the grandfather of the castle builder, Radbot) in 952, emerging from the unknown mists of history.


The Habsburg family emerged exactly from the time of "the cold "Dark Ages", which you believe was fabricated. So are they then the real family that created "history"? Please also consider this, the preceding male line ancestors of Habsburg founder Guntram the Rich, all the way back to Clovis (supposedly living c466-511), which you consider a "primary source", go back to these same Dark Ages. Thus, was Maximilian really creating fake propaganda,  and not a "primary source" for you? You told me you didn't remember Fomenko talking much about the Merovingians, so perhaps they are all fakes too, including the Habsburg Clovis ancestor, with Guntram the Rich the true 10th century founder. How much closer can one get to your 1000 AD recorded history truth, I would really like to know.


Fawkes said:


> I see, but I must warn you in advance, you are going to be disappointed, as some of these "ancestors" have no Wiki biographies, since they are considered by humanist/historians (whatever you want to call them) as fantasies. Of course, on that Arch, "Troia", "Sycambria", and "Francia" are meant to be representations for groups of peoples, not people themselves, so I might start with the first actually considered "historical" person, Clovis.
> By the way, if I may ask you, you have mentioned that you are from Italy. Have you ever personally researched in your native area for ancient sources, I would think that would be very interesting for you.
> 
> Again, I repeat, seriously, "If there are alternative facts on the dating of the castle, I would love to see them, as I seriously never have yet." I guess what you are trying to say is, that myself and the rest of the world have been brainwashed by the "Illuminati". OK, but what alternative for the Habsburg Castle dating do you propose, and why? I thought 1020 was pretty close to the start date of recorded history in 1000, if you believe in that, and then we have the Habsburgs establishing the Muri Abbey in 1027, where their first history and genealogy were created. How much closer to the year 1000 do you want it to be? Maybe the Habsburgs, instead of the Russians, worked out all of this time shifting in their castle, like Frankenstein creating new life in his castle!  Is that what you want me to believe? As I stated before-
> ...





Fawkes said:


> Also from The cradle of the Habsburgs - "We can truly speak of this period as a breakthrough time for civilisation in Europe."


Especially if the Habsburgs broke through obscure time and "created" civilization. Habsburg founder Guntram the Rich was contemporary with the first Holy Roman Emperor of the Ottonian dynasty, Otto I (they departed this world six weeks apart in 973). Guntram was convicted of treachery under Otto, but his dynasty eventually outlasted that of Otto. The origins of Habsburg Castle and Muri Abbey are near Zurich, the financial center and tax haven, where the powers that be supposedly keep their enormous fortunes. Prince Hans Adam II of neighboring Liechtenstein, a great-grandnephew of Habsburg Emperor Franz Joseph, owns the banking group LGT, making him one of the world's richest heads of state, and Europe's wealthiest monarch. Switzerland is traditionally "neutral", and keeps a very low profile. Even though there is no official Roman Emperor now, that heritage still belongs to the Habsburgs, and this family "officially" began by the year 1000. Are they merely "sleeping" now, since the last pandemic of 1918 in World War I, when they lost their throne?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I don't understand what it is you don't understand. It's all explained in the introdution to the Arch. And what about the Trithemius' work? Have you read it?


The introduction states that Maximilian descended from Hector of Troy, who was the son of King Priam. Hector is not shown among the ancestors of Maximilian on that Arch, is he, so where did that information come from, the introduction does not explain how, does it? In other words, no "primary source" is given for Hector, as you would say. 
Concerning Abbot Trithemius, he found 46 male line ancestors before Clovis, but Maximilian did not put them on his Arch, why not? Here they are again, Maximilian surely knew about them- 1, Marcomir. 2. Anthenor. 3. Priamus. 4. Helenus. 5. Diocles. 6. Helenus. 7. Basanus. 8. Chlodomer. 9. Nicanor. 10. Marcomir. 11. Clodius. 12. Anthenor. 13. Clodomer. 14. Merodach. 15. Cassander. 16. Ancharius. 17. Franco (um Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung). 18. Clogius. 19. Herimer. 20. Marcomir. 21. Clodomir. 22. Anthenor. 23. Ratterius. 24. Richimer. 25. Odemar. 26. Marcomir. 27. Clodomer. 28. Favabert. 29. Sunno. 30. Childerich. 31. Berthar. 32. Clodius. 33. Walther. 34. Dagobert. 35. Clogio (died 309). 36. Clodomer. 37. Richimer. 38. Thedemer. 39. Clogio. 40. Marcomir. 41. Dagobert (died 385). 42. Genebald. 43. Faramund. 44. Clodius. 45. Merovech. 46. Childerich. 47. Chlodevech usw. (_Chronicon Hirsaugiense, 1495-1503_).
 Number 47 is the Latin form of Clovis, the ancestor of Maximilian that starts being represented on his Arch. If this is a "primary source", why didn't Maximilian put these 46 male line ancestors of Clovis on his Arch, along with his other ancestors, or did he finally run out of room?  
If your opinion is that Abbot Trithemius, who worked for Maximilian in order to discover the Habsburg genealogy, was a humanist faker of information, then that "primary source" on the Arch is fake too. I don't want it to be this way, I really hope that you may be right. As I told you, I have distant Habsburg connections myself, but I am trying hard to remain impartial, and not develop a "fetish" for them.
Also note this, see the three frogs on the right hand side of the shield of Clovis on the Arch? This was supposed to have been the emblem of Pharamond (Faramund), Number 43 in the above list, the great-great-grandfather of Clovis (see below, the three frogs are on the left side of the shield of Clovis there). As Maximilian also encouraged the study of heraldry, in order to investigate his genealogy, he should have been informed and known about this. Yet he did not even extend the ancestry of Clovis, who was shown on his Arch, back only four more generations to Pharamond. Again, why not?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 20, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I see, but I must warn you in advance, you are going to be disappointed, as some of these "ancestors" have no Wiki biographies, since they are considered by humanist/historians (whatever you want to call them) as fantasies.


Maybe you can find the wiki article of the 'fantasy' character. Here two examples of such articles: Philip the Arab and Christianity - Wikipedia and Legends about Theodoric the Great - Wikipedia.



Fawkes said:


> By the way, if I may ask you, you have mentioned that you are from Italy. Have you ever personally researched in your native area for ancient sources, I would think that would be very interesting for you.


Not yet. I am more interested in the overall structure of history, since the minute episodes are conditioned and interpreted according to the prevailing narrative.



Fawkes said:


> Again, I repeat, seriously, "If there are alternative facts on the dating of the castle, I would love to see them, as I seriously never have yet." I guess what you are trying to say is, that myself and the rest of the world have been brainwashed by the "Illuminati". OK, but what alternative for the Habsburg Castle dating do you propose, and why?


The spirit that moves me to make a statement is that it must be rooted in something 'tangible'. We will never know if history described in ancient books is true, but it was at least written before the the current narrative came to be during the Renaissance, and desclared a 'myth' by the same humanists and their modern followers. So if you want me to be rude I could say "Yes you are brainwashed by the Illuminati, whatever they are!", but in reality I'm just asking you to follow the simple rule to try to provide the sources which tell the story and not the interpretation given by historians, expecially when this interpretation is given without citing the sources and/or with those sources completely inaccessible to verify the claims.


Fawkes said:


> I thought 1020 was pretty close to the start date of recorded history in 1000, if you believe in that, and then we have the Habsburgs establishing the Muri Abbey in 1027, where their first history and genealogy were created. How much closer to the year 1000 do you want it to be? Maybe the Habsburgs, instead of the Russians, worked out all of this time shifting in their castle, like Frankenstein creating new life in his castle!


That said I'm not criticizing the connections you are making because we all start from the main narrative we have been given. My critique is just for small details. It would be better, if you cannot find the original medieval source telling about the construction of the castle in that year, to say that this is what you are taking from modern history books, internet portals and the like.
Maybe at this point you could think that I'm a little paranoid, but I'm doing this not just to be _against_ you, but simply to remain on the tracks of this thread, which was based on the examination of a verifiable primary source and not the interpretation of unnamed historians passed down as facts.

I want to tell you that I appreciate your interest in the subject!



Fawkes said:


> The Habsburg family emerged exactly from the time of "the cold "Dark Ages", which you believe was fabricated.


Well, it's not my belief. Petrarch is the one who invented that terminology. Words are powerful. If it was not important you should explain why many historians in the past few decades have begun to reconsider that definition.
By the way, my critique towards historians is not _against _them as singular human beings. It is towards the system in which they act because they believe in it. It's just a problem of perspective and faith (or lack of it) in a narrative which was clearly created at the end of the so-called middle-ages (term invented by Flavio Biondo) during the Italian Renaissance.



Fawkes said:


> The introduction states that Maximilian descended from Hector of Troy, who was the son of King Priam. Hector is not shown among the ancestors of Maximilian on that Arch, is he, so where did that name come from, the introduction does not explain how, does it? In other words, no "primary source" is given for Hector, as you would say.


Yes exactly, I *would *say that! So the question is... why am I not saying it? The answer is about *priorities*. This is a primary source because it is not a document produced by academia to teach history. The Arch is an artistic product which conyìtains glimpses of history but its focus is the _glory_ of the House of Habsburg, as stated in the title.
The crafty historians could say that this is why this source is not reliable, since the client consciously states his intent in the first place. I answer back that historians do the same unconsciously, since they are indoctrinated to believe in other historians' tales and opinions slowly created piece by piece in the last 5-6 hundered years.
So I give _priority _to a _primary_ source because it was not conditioned (or at least less conditioned, for chronological reasons) by the modern historical narrative which tells us this is a fantasy product without mentioning that our common narrative is based on sources suddenly recovered after centuries in strange situations by unreliable characters (see Bracciolini) or based on a selection of few passages taken from various unrelated sources and intentionally cutting out all the things that don't fit in the narrative. A selective bias almost all historians are subjested to, apparently.



Fawkes said:


> Concerning Abbot Trithemius, he found 46 male line ancestors before Clovis, but Maximilian did not put them on his Arch, why not? Here they are again, Maximilian surely knew about them- 1, Marcomir. 2. Anthenor. 3. Priamus. 4. Helenus. 5. Diocles. 6. Helenus. 7. Basanus. 8. Chlodomer. 9. Nicanor. 10. Marcomir. 11. Clodius. 12. Anthenor. 13. Clodomer. 14. Merodach. 15. Cassander. 16. Ancharius. 17. Franco (um Beginn unserer Zeitrechnung). 18. Clogius. 19. Herimer. 20. Marcomir. 21. Clodomir. 22. Anthenor. 23. Ratterius. 24. Richimer. 25. Odemar. 26. Marcomir. 27. Clodomer. 28. Favabert. 29. Sunno. 30. Childerich. 31. Berthar. 32. Clodius. 33. Walther. 34. Dagobert. 35. Clogio (died 309). 36. Clodomer. 37. Richimer. 38. Thedemer. 39. Clogio. 40. Marcomir. 41. Dagobert (died 385). 42. Genebald. 43. Faramund. 44. Clodius. 45. Merovech. 46. Childerich. 47. Chlodevech usw. (_Chronicon Hirsaugiense, 1495-1503_). Number 47 is the Latin form of Clovis, the ancestor of Maximilian that starts being represented on his Arch. If this is a "primary source", why didn't Maximilian put these 46 male line ancestors of Clovis on his Arch also?


Please Fawkes, try to read the OP and the few lines on the Arch itself, since it is explained that various characters were not represented:


> Although there are many heathen kings in the line of descendants, from father to son, these are not pictured because they were neither baptized nor did they believe in the Christian faith. Their names will be given in another book.


I even asked you about the book mentioned here in a prevoius post!
In any case I would like to ask you if you actually read the _Chronicon Hirsaugiense _from which you are taking your info, since you already know that I would like to base our conversation upon solid verifiable ground. If you have a link of the book (obviously translated), please share it with me (us). I repeteadly talk about verifiability because it seems that historians have a tendency *to omit* precious informations just because those info don't fit into their preconceived narrative. See 'Philip the Christian' and 'Caesar and Nero giving Austria its name and therefore confirming their location to the West of Austria'.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> it is explained that various characters were not represented:


OK, that makes sense to me, so we agree on that, Thank You for reminding me! I did read it some time previously, but, amongst all of the other new information that I am obtaining here, did not remember to apply it to this situation, which I should have, as Clovis was the first baptized male line ancestor of Maximilian. 


Silveryou said:


> If you have a link of the book (obviously translated), please share it with me (us)


No, I don't, unfortunately, or I would have shared it here.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 20, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> By the way, if I may ask you, you have mentioned that you are from Italy. Have you ever personally researched in your native area for ancient sources, I would think that would be very interesting for you.


There's something I wrote about Milan in another thread, even if it's not directly related to this one. No sources involved, my bad

It is said that the Black Death (1346-1353) spared Milan, no one knows exactly why. But Milan was the principal victim of the Great Plague of Milan (1629-1631 - 1629–1631 Italian plague - Wikipedia), which spared Europe and most of Italy.
That was the time of the Thirty Years' War (Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia), during which it is stated that "Estimates of total military and civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation. In some areas of Germany, it has been suggested that up to 60% of the population died."
About the name "Black Death", in 1908, Gasquet claimed that use of the name _atra mors_ for the 14th-century epidemic first appeared in a 1631 book on Danish history by J. I. Pontanus: "Commonly and from its effects, they called it the black death" (_Vulgo & ab effectu atram mortem vocitabant_). (Black Death - Wikipedia).


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> That was the time of the Thirty Years' War (Thirty Years' War - Wikipedia), during which it is stated that "Estimates of total military and civilian deaths range from 4.5 to 8 million, mostly from disease or starvation. In some areas of Germany, it has been suggested that up to 60% of the population died."


Which also ended the Habsburg Empire, according to Fomenko, which I disagree with. It certainly weakened it, but did not "officially" end it, as Napoleon caused that to happen with the Habsburg Roman Empire in 1806.


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 20, 2021)

The Carolingian Chart looks like a rabbit. Could that be significant?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 20, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I don't remember him talking too much about the Merovingians in his 'History Fiction...' books. Maybe just few words. This is a graph about the Carolingians.


On his Arch, Maximilian was careful to keep Carolingians off of his personal family "tree", as they were considered to be usurpers, and Maximilian was claiming a legitimate Merovingian descent and succession. 


Will Scarlet said:


> The Carolingian Chart looks like a rabbit. Could that be significant?


I think you are really splitting "hares" here, unless that chart is a Rorschach test to spot potential "Fomenkoites"! 


Silveryou said:


> Maybe you can find the wiki article of the 'fantasy' character.


The male line of Clovis to Maximilian I on the Arch, from English Wikipedia, as far as could be ascertained-



1- Clovis Clovis I - Wikipedia

2- Chlothar Chlothar I - Wikipedia

3- Chilperic Chilperic I - Wikipedia

4- Theudebert Theudebert of Soissons - Wikipedia No wife or children are named in his Wikipedia article, or anywhere else so far by Googling him

5- Otbert (not mentioned) This is where the male Habsburg family line from Clovis, down to Maximilian I on his Arch, is broken, because of no confirming records of Otbert, that we have today on the Internet. So did Otbert (Oberto) not really exist, or was he "scrubbed" from the Habsburg family line by later humanist/historians? No further male line ancestors of Maximilian I on his Arch are mentioned in Wikipedia, until we get down to Guntram the Rich (d. 973), the "historical" founder of the House of Habsburg, who lived four centuries after the presumed father of Otbert, Theudebert (d. 575).  So do we simply "eliminate" those four intervening centuries, to make this Arch pedigree "right"?


Fawkes said:


> On his Arch, Maximilian was careful to keep Carolingians off of his personal family "tree", as they were considered to be usurpers, and Maximilian was claiming a legitimate Merovingian descent and succession.
> 
> I think you are really splitting "hares" here, unless that chart is a Rorschach test to spot potential "Fomenkoites"!
> 
> ...


OK, I just found this Habsburg pedigree chart from an excerpt of "Historia de Xerez" (1730) by Bartolome Gutierrez (1701-1758), which I have never read, and whom I have never heard of. However, it has an Othobert, the GRANDSON of a King Theudobert of Austrasia (looks like a different branch from Chlothar, son of Clovis), as the "count of Altemburg" (Altenburg), and according to the _Acta Murensia_ (about 1160) the count of Altenberg, who was son of Guntram the Rich, and ancestor of the Habsburgs, was named *Kanzelin*. Many authorities believe he was the same person as _Landold_, for which Lanzelin is a nickname. This Othobert, count of Altemburg, also has a male line descent down to Guntram the Rich. It would appear that this is a revision (or deliberate garbling) of the Maximilian Arch pedigree, from Clovis to Guntram the Rich, by a historian- 

Clodovius (Clovis)
Clotarius, whose son Sigibert became a king in Austria (Note that Gutierrez is equating Austrasia with Austria)
Sigibert, half-brother of the Chilperic shown on the Arch  Sigebert I - Wikipedia
Childubert, king of Austrasia and Burgundy Childebert II - Wikipedia, nephew & adopted son of Guntram, King of Orleans
Theodobert, king of Austrasia Theudebert II - Wikipedia No son named Ligibert shown.
Ligibert, duke of Austrasia
Othobert, count of Altemburg
Amprinetus
Hectobert
Rampert
Guntramus I
Luiffridus I
Luiffridus II
Hundifridus
Gumtramus II (Guntram the Rich, d. 973)


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 21, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> in 1627, during the reign of Holy Roman Emperor Ferdinand II, the great-great-grandson of Maximilian I,
> Hans Ulrich Fisch (1583-1647) produced an abbreviated family tree and record of the coat of arms of the Habsburg (Hapsburg) dynasty rulers. Fisch was a stained glass painter, book illustrator and local politician in the northern Swiss town of Aarau in the canton of Aargau.
> Aargau is significant because the 11th century castle in the small town of Habsburg gave rise to the name (and original family seat) of the mighty Habsburg royal dynasty which ruled significant portions of Europe for more than five hundred years.
> It has (1) King Sigebert of Austrasia (AD 630), a male line descendant of the Merovingian King Clovis, as the father of (2) Theodebert, king of Helvetia and Alemannia. He is supposed to be the father of (3) A FIRST Guntram (not the later Guntram the Rich), and then the male line goes down as (4) Sigebert (5) Otbert (6) Bebo (7) Robert (8) Ethobert (9) Balbon (10) Landolt (11) Rampert (12) Guntram the Rich.


Notice how some of these Habsburg Arch ancestors of Maximilian I are switched around in order by other "historians", from the above by Fisch in 1627 -

(1) King Sigebert of Austrasia (AD 630), a male line descendant of the Merovingian King Clovis, as the father of
(2) Theodebert, king of Helvetia and Alemannia. He is supposed to be the father of
(3) A FIRST Guntram (not the later Guntram the Rich), and then the male line goes down as
(4) Sigebert
(5) Otbert (now Otbert is the son of a Sigebert in this pedigree)
(6) Bebo
(7) Robert
(8) Ethobert
(9) Balbon
(10) Landolt
(11) Rampert
(12) Guntram the Rich (d. 973).

Finally, by Hieronymus Gebwiler, German humanist, historian, pedagogue and scholastic (1480-1545) in 1530, 11 years after the passing of Maximilian I (Marcomir, supposedly living 433 BC, son of Antenor, descendant of King Priam of Troy, was Number 1) -

47. Chlodvech. (Clovis)
48. Chlothar.
49. Sigubert.
50. Childbert.
51. Theodebert.
52. Sigubert.
53. Otbert.
54. Bebo.
55. Robert.
56. Amprintus (Rampert).
57. Guntram the Rich (d. 973)

In this case, I have the source, if you can read Latin - Epitome regii ac vetvstissimi ortus sacrae caesarae ac Catholic̜e maiestatis, serenissimi quoq[ue] principis & domini, Dn. Ferdinandi, Vngariae ac Bohemiae regis, omniumq[ue] archiducum Austriae, ac Habsburgensium comitum : Gebwiler, Hieronymus, 1480-1545 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
Hieronymus Gebwiler actually starts with Noah in his Habsburg genealogy, and goes down from him through King Osiris (mentioned on the Monumental Inscription of the Arch), Hercules Lybius, etc., to the Trojans, King Priam, descendants of his son Hector (he is also mentioned on the Monumental Inscription), Merovingians, and finally the Habsburgs, all the way to Ferdinand I, the grandson of Maximilian I.

Hieronymus Gebwiler, German humanist, historian, pedagogue and scholastic (1480-1545) I also found his biography - ADB:Gebwiler, Hieronymus – Wikisource

I have now presented four male line Habsburg pedigrees composed from the 15th (this one, starting from Clovis, wound up represented on the Arch of Maximilian I), 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, before that male Habsburg line became extinct in 1740. Now they are descended in the female line from that much older male line, like me!


----------



## Will Scarlet (Nov 21, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> I think you are really splitting "hares" here, unless that chart is a Rorschach test to spot potential "Fomenkoites"!



It's obviously related to Lewis *Carroll *and 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' - that rabbit was obsessed with chronology.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 21, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> It's obviously related to Lewis *Carroll *and 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' - that rabbit was obsessed with chronology.


"White Rabbit" that's really "SLICK"! 

The 1530 Habsburg genealogy that I just found, by Hieronymus Gebwiler, starts off with Noah, equated with Janus, the Roman god of beginnings, gates, transitions, time, duality, doorways, passages, frames, and endings. The image of Noah in that book shows him with two faces, like Janus (below). On this site, as I am discovering, the two faces might also apply to the two chronologies being discussed here, the falsified historical one, and the true hidden one.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 22, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> 5- Otbert (not mentioned) This is where the male Habsburg family line from Clovis, down to Maximilian I on his Arch, is broken, because of no confirming records of Otbert, that we have today on the Internet. So did Otbert (Oberto) not really exist, or was he "scrubbed" from the Habsburg family line by later humanist/historians? No further male line ancestors of Maximilian I on his Arch are mentioned in Wikipedia, until we get down to Guntram the Rich (d. 973), the "historical" founder of the House of Habsburg, who lived four centuries after the presumed father of Otbert, Theudebert (d. 575). So do we simply "eliminate" those four intervening centuries, to make this Arch pedigree "right"?


Let's say that at that point your ancestors were not very reknown. I would see no problem in saying that we probably have no documents about them and few or less than few people talked about them! Let's be real and think about how many important people will be remembered in the future of our own epoch. A 1%? And we live in an epoch with overabundant information!
It seems a paradox, but the MOST important people in our day and age is totally unknown to the masses and is never mentioned on newspapers, books and all sort of media we have to digest on a daily base. Think about the RedShields aka El-Khan for example.

My interest in this list is about the nicknames and emblems too. I have a hard time reading the names on the Arch but now that you have given various other lists it's maybe possible to decipher the names by comparison.

As for 'eliminating' some of your ancestors, the decision is upon you. We will never know the truth about it, since there was much confusion already in the time of Maximilian, but I'm interested in alternative traditions and stories coming out of primary sources, so I'm gonna see if I succeed in deciphering. Good luck to me


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 22, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Let's say that at that point your ancestors were not very reknown.


That's OK with me, I am "not very renowned" either!  Seriously, though, look at what I just found about "Othpert" and "Rambert" possibly being Habsburg ancestors, from German Wikipedia - "In early historical research, the counts Othpert and Rambert are named as predecessors or ancestors. These are mentioned in a document from Count Liutfried. [1] Othpert is considered to be the founder of the St. Trudpert Monastery in the Black Forest." Remember, too, that according to the "Historia de Xerez" (1730), by Bartolome Gutierrez, "Othobert" is supposed to be a count of "Altemburg".
Ah, look at this, from the English Wikipedia article about Saint Trudpert -  "A person of rank named Otbert gave him land for his mission about 25 km (16 mi) south of Freiburg in Baden, today a part of the village Münstertal, Black Forest.[1] ......  According to a now discounted tradition, one day when he was asleep he was murdered under a pine by one of the serfs whom Otbert had given him, in revenge for severe tasks imposed. Otbert gave Trudpert an honourable burial. The Benedictine Abbey of St. Trudpert (de:St. Trudpert) was built in the next century on the spot where Trudpert was buried. The story of his life is so full of legendary details that no correct judgment can be formed of Trudpert's era, the kind of work he did, or of its success." I think I have just given you some "alternative traditions and stories" to "decipher"! 


Silveryou said:


> I have a hard time reading the names on the Arch


So do I! (lol)


Silveryou said:


> My interest in this list is about the nicknames and emblems too.


OK, going by the coat of arms underneath the Habsburg ancestors on the Arch, it looks as though Otbert is considered to be the first "Habsburg count", since he has the Habsburg lion on the upper left corner of his shield, as opposed to his three "historical" predecessors, with the royal French fleur-de-lis on theirs. It is very hard for me to make out the nicknames, is that "der Earl" underneath the name "Ottpertus", but "earl" in German is "Graf", is it not?


Fawkes said:


> going by the coat of arms underneath the Habsburg ancestors on the Arch, it looks as though Otbert is considered to be the first "Habsburg count"


What that should really mean is that Otbert was the first PROTO-Habsburg count, as he is described in the "Historia de Xerez" (1730), by Bartolome Gutierrez, as actually "count of Altemburg." Thus, his son Bebo would be too, and also "Rotherus" (Robert?). Borrowing from the David Hughes origin pedigrees of the Habsburgs, with no sources, and applying it to the Habsburg ancestors seen on the Arch, we then have 
* Hectobert, Count of Altemberg - "Ethobertus" on the Arch
Rampert, Count of Altemberg - "Rampertus" on the Arch
Guntram, a count - "Gunthramus" on the Arch
Liutfrid I, Count of Sundgau -  "Luitgardus" on the Arch
Liutfrid II, Count of Sundgau - "Luitfridus" on the Arch
Liutfrid III, Count of Sundgau (skip)
Liutfrid IV, Count of Sundgau, d912 (skip)
Liutfrid V, Count of Sundgau, d925 (skip)
Hundifrid, a count - "Hunfridus" on the Arch 
Guntram "The Rich" (d. 973) - "Gunthramus" on the Arch *​


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 22, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> "Rotherus" (Robert?).


According to Hieronymus Gebwiler, "Ropertus", the "Count of Habsburg", was buried in the 15th year of Pippin, King of the Franks, on "DCC. LXVL Calendis Iulii .", which would be July 1, 766 AD. This would be correct dating, as Pippin (Pepin) became King of the Franks in 751 - Pepin the Short - Wikipedia


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 22, 2021)

I don't know if this has any relevance here but Pippin was a corruption of pip in which came into being in the 1800's possibly earlier when fruit breeders primarily the Rivers family were breeding apples for flavour and keeping qualities etc and selling them to the big houses with their walled gardens and orchards.
Coxs Orange Pippin and Ribston Pippin were both so named as they originated not from fruit breeders efforts of grafting and pollinating but from trees found growing in gardens sown by animals or by the people who lived there for their own use.
The Pippin moniker denotes the source of these varieties.

Here's the stretch or maybe not IF the creation of the tales of Habsburg was concurrent with the naming of these apple varieties then MAYBE we can begin to look to see if other words in use at the time of the naming make their way into the tales of Royals?
I may be mad but it seems to me it will take some form of left field thinking to get a handle on things.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 22, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Othpert is considered to be the founder of the St. Trudpert Monastery in the Black Forest."


I may be wrong in correlating these Habsburg ancestors to those on the Arch, but what I am getting from Gebwiler is that Bebo, son and "Prince" of the "Habsburg Count" named "Otberti", built an oratory for Trudpert. Apparently Othpert and Bebo felt guilty, because a serf of Othpert allegedly murdered Trudpert. In turn, it looks as though "Ropertus", "Count of Habsburg", the son of Bebo, magnificently gifted that oratory.
Trudpert thus appears to be a connecting link to some of those obscure "proto-Habsburg" counts, and the next "Count of Habsburg" on the Arch, that Gebwiler mentions, is "Amprintus" (Rampertus), "Count of Habsburg". During the lifetime of "Amprintus" (Rampertus), the "martyred" Trudpert was canonized by Pope Stephen V about the year 814, which is off a little. Pope Stephen IV - Wikipedia.
The son of Amprintus/Rampertus, the first "Guntrammus" on the Arch, and "Count of Habsburg", began to build a stone citadel for Saint Trudpert in the hills of the valley, and Saint Trudpert is buried at the monastery.
Then, we have the son and grandson of this first "Guntrammus" on the Arch, "Luitgardus" and "Luitfridus", also on the Arch, who according to David Hughes, were Counts of the Sundgau, which would be true at that period of time.
Finally, on the Arch, we have "Hunfridus", the supposed father of the historical Habsburg founder, Guntram the Rich (d. 973), whom David Hughes designates as a "count Hundifrid".
Regardless of the validity of his research, I think that David Hughes makes a good point about name confusion, in these early Habsburg genealogies, as he stated below -

*Perhaps the confusion of the Habsburg ancestry by medieval clerics came about by the genealogical sequence in all three genealogies, which are basically the same names:

Theory "A" (Colonna descent)

11. Leudfrido, bro of the Count of Camerino

12. Hunroch

13. Guntram "The Rich"

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theory "B" (Merovingian descent)

19. Liutfrid V, Count of Sundgau

20. Hundifrid

21. Guntram "The Rich"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Theory "C" (Etichoni descent)

16. Liutfrid VI, Duke of Alsace

17. Hunfrid, bro of Hugh V, Duke 925, and Liutfrid VIII, Duke

18. Guntrum "The Rich"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*​


Fawkes said:


> Fawkes said:
> 
> 
> > Trudpert thus appears to be a connecting link to some of those obscure "proto-Habsburg" counts
> ...


OK, if the Habsburg Arch genealogy is the "primary source", and can't be wrong, then is the first "Gunthrammus, Count of Habsburg", on the Arch, the same person as Hugo, Count of Tours? Hugh of Tours - Wikipedia A son of Hugo of Tours is *LIUTFRIED, the father of another LIUTFRIED (father of HUNFRIED, the supposed father of Guntram the Rich), who supposedly has the Saint Trudpert/Otberti/Rampertus connection. You can see this below, in the account of the 903 AD donation charter to Saint Trudpert's monastery, from this second LIUTFRIED - *

“_Lutfridus_” donated property “_quod ego et fratre meo Hugone in partem hereditariam possedi_”, with the consent of “_filiis meis Huntfrido, Lutfrido, Hugone_” (the three sons of "Lutfridus", so is "Huntfrido" actually the father of Guntram the Rich, as represented on the Arch?), to St Trudpert´s monastery, by charter dated 21 Feb 903*[187]*. “_Albertus comes de Habesburg. Lantgravius Alsatie_” confirmed the privileges of “_monasterii Sancti Trudperti...in Nigra Silva_” founded by “_prædecessorum et progenitorum nostrorum Lutfridi comitis, Otperti et Ramperti_”, by charter dated 1186, which quotes the earlier charter dated 21 Feb 903 (“_anno III regnante Ludevico filio Arnolfi, sub comite Wolfilino_”) under which “_Luitfridus...et fratre meo Hugone_” confirmed the foundation by “_antecessoribus meis Otperto...et Ramperto_”, with the consent of “_filiis meis Hunfrido (...in Norgauwe), Luitfrido (...in Sungawa), Hugone (...in Eginsheim)_”*[188]*.

On the other hand, this could be part of the confusion with the similar names, occurring in these different Habsburg pedigrees that have been proposed, as David Hughes noticed. The "Lutfridus" above, who donated property to the monastery of Saint Trudpert, may be the grandson of the first Gunthrammus on the Arch of Maximilian I, and not the grandson of Hugh of Tours, as proposed by the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy site. This fits in with the Saint Trudpert connection to the Habsburg line all along, from the beginning, with "Otperti" and "Ramperti", which is confirmed by a later charter of "Albertus", Count of Habsburg, in 1186. As shown above, Count Albrecht III’s confirmation of the privileges of the monastery of St. Trudpert in 1186 mentions "*prædecessorum et progenitorum nostrorum Lutfridi comitis", *_my PREDECESSOR and PROGENITOR count Liutfrid_. Albrecht III is most definitely represented on the Arch of Maximilian as "Albrecht der reich", Albert the Rich Albert III, Count of Habsburg - Wikipedia

Here's a bigger blowup of those early Habsburg ancestors on the Arch of Maximilian I -


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> OK, going by the coat of arms underneath the Habsburg ancestors on the Arch, it looks as though Otbert is considered to be the first "Habsburg count", since he has the Habsburg lion on the upper left corner of his shield, as opposed to his three "historical" predecessors, with the royal French fleur-de-lis on theirs.


This is one of the things I'm very interested. What's the meaning of the various coat of arms? Do you know where to find some explanations (or maybe you can explain it yourself)?


 This one should simply be _Troy _(and then _Sycambria_)


 Personal coat of arms of _Pharamond_, according to what you said + T_roy/Sycambria = France _(?!?)


 _Pharamond + fleur de lys _used only by _Clovis_. Is it because the fleur de lys stands for the Holy Spirit?


 Only _fleur de lys _remains. Why? Is it because _Pharamond _was pagan? Used from _Clotharius _to _Theodebertus


 Troy/Sycambria +?+?+? _This was used for the 'obscure' part of the story. Can you recognise the symbols?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> What's the meaning of the various coat of arms? Do you know where to find some explanations


"The fleur-de-lis' symbolic origins with French monarchs may stem from the baptismal lily used in the crowning of King Clovis I.[15] The French monarchy may have adopted the Fleur-de-lis for its royal coat of arms as a symbol of purity to commemorate the conversion of Clovis I,[16] and a reminder of the Fleur-de-lis ampulla that held the oil used to anoint the king. So, the fleur-de-lis stood as a symbol of the king's divinely approved right to rule. The thus "anointed" kings of France later maintained that their authority was directly from God. A legend enhances the mystique of royalty by informing us that a vial of oil—the Holy Ampulla—descended from Heaven to anoint and sanctify Clovis as King,[17] descending directly on Clovis or perhaps brought by a dove to Saint Remigius. One version explains that an angel descended with the Fleur-de-lis ampulla to anoint the king.[18] Another story tells of Clovis putting a flower in his helmet just before his victory at the Battle of Vouillé.[9] Through this propagandist connection to Clovis, the fleur-de-lis has been taken in retrospect to symbolize all the Christian Frankish kings, most notably Charlemagne.[_citation needed_]" Fleur-de-lis - Wikipedia


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

These below were the first Kings of France according to the Arch (with different coat of arms). Why Theudebert had the same coat of arms of his predecessors, implying he was King too? This doesn't fit with current lists of Kings of France.


​Edit: even though Theudebert is the first with a sword instead of a sceptre, and without a crown. But he retained the coat of arms! What's the meaning?


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Off topic but the bloke with the sword is a spit for Peter Sellers.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> These below were the first Kings of France according to the Arch (with different coat of arms). Why Theudebert had the same coat of arms of his predecessors, implying he was King too? This doesn't fit with current lists of Kings of France.
> View attachment 14414​Edit: even though Theudebert is the first with a sword instead of a sceptre, and without a crown. But he retained the coat of arms! What's the meaning?


Theudebert. the eldest son of King Chilperic, was killed in battle before he could become King of France, but he was still a Prince and Heir to the throne, thus entitled to the royal coat of arms. I believe the sword must denote that he was a warrior. Notice how the Habsburg family name "Guntram" was originally a Merovingian name at this time.  Theudebert of Soissons - Wikipedia

For a discussion of the Trojan lion coat of arms, and more about the French lily crest, see page 235 here - Ambitious Antiquities, Famous Forebears

 It looks as though, somehow, the lion on the Trojan coat of arms, evolved into the lion for the Counts of Habsburg coat of arms, but more research is needed House of Habsburg - Wikipedia -


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Throughout reading this thread one thing leaps out constantly and that is the stupidity that seems to be inherent in the names of these men. They certainly do not travel very far through time nor do they move through generations very far unlike the official Royal lines we are presented with. It reads as though someone at sometime invented these kingly names and presumably the characters themselves.

By stupidity I mean they are not the name you would give to your child and they seem to have no founding in any specific language.

Bloody hell! Meet Theudebert?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> For a discussion of the Trojan lion coat of arms, and more about the French lily crest, see page 235 here - Ambitious Antiquities, Famous Forebears




This explanation seems to me just another _explanation_. The author takes for granted the middle-eastern position of the _legendary _Troy, as if 'Dirk' directly consulted Schliemann for the portrait. Reality is that yet in Roman times people didn't have a clue where Troy really was and the Troy in Turkey (not necessarily the one we see today) was just a city with the same name. We also have other historical characters represented with a lion (Troyan coat of arms) and with 'oriental' features but there are also representations of true oriental characters, who are most of the time very different and truly oriental.



kd-755 said:


> It reads as though someone at sometime invented these kingly names and presumably the characters themselves.


I personally oppose this view, not because it's wrong, but because it was prompted by the Renaissance humanism which brought us to the actual 'true' history vs 'fake' history. Everything deemed fake by those historians is kept apart and never publicly discussed unless done in a sarcastic way as in "How ignorant were those medieval people!"



Fawkes said:


> It looks as though, somehow, the lion on the Trojan coat of arms, evolved into the lion for the Counts of Habsburg coat of arms, but more research is needed House of Habsburg - Wikipedia -


The Lion emblem is everywhere in the West. That tells something about how history was perceived 'just' 5-6 centuries ago.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is one of the things I'm very interested. What's the meaning of the various coat of arms? Do you know where to find some explanations (or maybe you can explain it yourself)?
> View attachment 14408 This one should simply be _Troy _(and then _Sycambria_)
> View attachment 14409 Personal coat of arms of _Pharamond_, according to what you said + T_roy/Sycambria = France _(?!?)
> View attachment 14410 _Pharamond + fleur de lys _used only by _Clovis_. Is it because the fleur de lys stands for the Holy Spirit?
> ...


An excerpt which may give some explanation:



> E.R. Roth, “The Old in Europe”:
> When the French King is crowned, His Majesty takes communion according to the special authority of the Most Pure Mysteries of CHRIST in both forms, that is, in the body and blood of Our Savior: which according to the law of the Roman Church, no one except the one Christian Monarch is allowed. This Holy EUCHARIST is received by the King from the Holy Chalice with his own hands, kneeling.
> 
> So, the French king is special, not like all other monarchs. And even in the XVIII, monstrously enlightened century. Why such privileges? Is it not because the Gallic rulers are not trembling creatures, but have the right? And a legal right that is not disputed by any of the lords of the earth.
> ...


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I personally oppose this view, not because it's wrong, but because it was prompted by the Renaissance humanism which brought us to the actual 'true' history vs 'fake' history.


Its just an observation dear friend nothing more. Rooted in my frustration at being unable to come up with a methodology to determine the veracity of documented sources.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> An excerpt which may give some explanation


Calm down! I'm still at chapter 13



kd-755 said:


> Rooted in my frustration at being unable to come up with a methodology to determine the veracity of documented sources.


We share the same frustration I guess. My methodology (big word) is that original sources, whether true or fake, have the priority, because they generally tell a different story. As for the names many of those were used in Northern Italy (in the Italian version) until the '60s at least. Modern times have paved the way for christian (jewish) names while the 'germanic' sounding ones have been suddenly discarded and laughed to. Mohammed is the name for the future! Bye bye to traditional Eurpean names, but that's another story.

Edit for @Sasyexa: the coat of arms of Clovis included frogs, and in any case there is no mistery that both predecessors and successors had lions and 'eagles' in their emblems, so this explanation seems a little bit shaky to me.


> The King of France is one of the few Christian monarchs whose coat of arms does not include animals; moreover, it draws its main emblems and symbols from the plant world.



Double-edit: I think the most important feature of the Merovingians was their connection with long hair. Jesus is always represented with long hair.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Edit for @Sasyexa: the coat of arms of Clovis included frogs, and in any case there is no mistery that both predecessors and successors had lions and 'eagles' in their emblems, so this explanation seems a little bit shaky to me.


Maybe that means they were not kings of just France? Or maybe some dynastic relations to other kingdoms. 
Could be related to this: From Scythia to Maghreb: Beyond the Phantom Middle Ages specifically, the identification of early French kings to Hungarian kings, to Constantine, to Cyril etc.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> Maybe that means they were not kings of just France? Or maybe some dynastic relations to other kingdoms.


I mentioned eagles but it has nothing to do with France. Pharamond's personal emblem was frogs though and nothing comes to my mind about kingdoms with frogs in the coat of arms.


Sasyexa said:


> Could be related to this: From Scythia to Maghreb: Beyond the Phantom Middle Ages specifically, the identification of early French kings to Hungarian kings, to Constantine, to Cyril etc.


I've not read it yet even though I watched the video some years ago. The only thing I can say is that Pannonia/Austria/Hungary/(Arcadia) has a special place in history. Constantine seems to me a double of Pepin, for his role in the constitution of the Vatican. The rest is a maze of notions and strange similarities which I'm sure can disclosure multiple things. It happens frequently to stumble upon weird things but I don't know where to post them since they always end up being ignored between thousand of posts (and maybe it's the best thing that can happen).


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Pharamond's personal emblem was frogs though and nothing comes to my mind about kingdoms with frogs in the coat of arms.


That's a million dollar question: what can be associated with frogs that is *not* France?


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> As for the names many of those were used in Northern Italy (in the Italian version) until the '60s at least.


Well you live and learn. The poor bastards being lumbered by such monikers.


Silveryou said:


> My methodology (big word) is that original sources, whether true or fake, have the priority, because they generally tell a different story.


If I may ask how do you determine authentic originality?


Silveryou said:


> Jesus is always represented with long hair.


Does this hold true for pictures of Jesus in books and on walls in lands that are not of the christian religion?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> If I may ask how do you determine authentic originality?


Maybe I should have used the word old/ancient, even though it's difficult to say how old/ancient. They generally contain known stories told in a totally different 'absurd' manner or info neglected by current history. This Arch for example implicitely states that Caesar and Nero had their 'throne' to the West of Austria.


kd-755 said:


> Does this hold true for pictures of Jesus in books and on walls in lands that are not of the christian religion?


Don't know if it's always true, but it is certainly a cliche I've seen everywhere and I really cannot remember a different hair style.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Thank you on both counts. I've never seen let alone read any first edition of any book from before 1900 at least according to the books themselves which is why I am sceptical of the veracity of their content. I've possibly seen the spines of a couple given the number of stately homes I've been in but never got to open any. 
I do like your take on the 'absurdity' of the manner being a decent guide. That seems to me to be as good a guide as any.
As to the arch its another whole can of worms in regards authenticity as stone carving does not allow for the absurdity measure to be brought into play.
West of Austria is rather vague as though the person who commissioned the carving (is he named at all?) either wants to conceal the exact location of the 'throne' or he didn't know.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> West of Austria is rather vague as though the person who commissioned the carving (is he named at all?) either wants to conceal the exact location of the 'throne' or he didn't know.


The monumental inscription (https://www.metmuseum.org/about-the...er-arch-of-honor/inscription-on-arch-of-honor) by Johannes Stabius says in Panel V:


> The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that *the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality.*


It is not about concealment. Everyone knows that Rome is to the south of Austria, so stating that the Roman Emperors called that teritory 'the eastern mark' implicitely means that they were located in the West. Think about it! Even though detractors can say that Stabius was an ignorant or that Julius (not Caesar) and Nero never talked about Austria, it is nonetheless true that this Arch was a sort of manifest for the glory of one of most powerful men on Earth. And here you can see a mindblowing geographical error, because from a 'Roman' point of view Austria should be called the Northern Mark/Kingdom.


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Excuse my ignorance on this matter but does any of this Arch of Glory examination have any bearing on the Holy Roman Empire?
Idiotic question ignore it.

Present day Rome as in the city (ex- city state?) is indeed south of present day Austria. The Mark of the Rising Sun is personified so too speak in the crown and the Archdukes hat that cap the two towers  and it is these artefacts which Johannes Stabius said signify the Archduchy of Austria.
I take it Johannes was commissioned by Maximilian I?

Assuming I have that right then it is a strong probability that Maximilian was the man who sought and claimed descent from either Caesars and Neros times as it has come down to us, if not lineage and this would mean the panels wordage was used to set this claim in stone so too speak?

Does it mean that the Archduchy was claimed to be the "oldest free principality"?


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Does it mean that the Archduchy was claimed to be the "oldest free principality"?


From my post #76 here, "The first letter was supposedly addressed by Julius Caesar to the people of the ‘eastern land’, by which was plainly meant Austria. Julius Caesar ordered the easterners or Austrians to accept his uncle as their ruler, who was given an absolute power over them as their ‘feudal lord.’ The fake letter also admitted Julius Caesar’s uncle to the innermost counsels of the Roman Empire, ‘so that henceforth no weighty matter or suit be resolved without his knowledge.’ In the other letter contained in the Pseudo-Henry, the emperor Nero similarly addressed the people of the east. Nero declared that because they outstripped in splendour all other peoples of the Roman Empire, he had upon the advice of the senate released them from paying all imperial taxes and awarded them freedom for ever more." Habsburgs: Losing Place and Forging a Past"


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> Excuse my ignorance on this matter but does any of this Arch of Glory examination have any bearing on the Holy Roman Empire?


There is no mentioning of a distinction between various 'Roman Empires', so the Holy one and the old one are the same on the Arch.


kd-755 said:


> I take it Johannes was commissioned by Maximilian I?


Yes.


kd-755 said:


> Assuming I have that right then it is a strong probability that Maximilian was the man who sought and claimed descent from either Caesars and Neros times as it has come down to us, if not lineage and this would mean the panels wordage was used to set this claim in stone so too speak?


You are right, but we have to think that in the 15th-16th century our current History was still in the making, so it is not about trying to legitimate the position of the 'Holy' Roman Emperor, because at that time there was no doubt that the power of the Emperor directly descended from ancient times. The eventual descent from Caesar is a different aspect and not important to be elected Emperor, even though it could certainly give him much more prestige.


kd-755 said:


> Does it mean that the Archduchy was claimed to be the "oldest free principality"?


Here the Arch must be seen inside its political context. In 1356 the Pope established that the Habsburgs were not part of the Prince-electors, while they claimed to be part of that since Caesar and Nero both had established Austria as an Archduchy in possess of that privilege. Now Maximilian is remembering that dispute from a psition of strenght since his family had finally reached the position of Emperors putting an end to the ritual Roman incoronation... to be done in Rome by the Pope... which is even more weird when you think about the position of the Roman Empire implicitely mentioned in the previous post to the West of Austria.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> the position of the Roman Empire implicitely mentioned in the previous post to the West of Austria.


Also from my #76 post, "The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules, who, coming from the lands about Armenia, had invested his heirs with Austria and Bavaria respectively. The Habsburgs were also swift to discover Roman credentials of their own, promoting their supposed descent from the allegedly senatorial family of Colonna. Chroniclers added to the story, describing how two brothers exiled from ancient ROME had gone NORTH of the Alps, one of whom went on to found Castle Habsburg."
Hercules was a pagan ancestor of Maximilian, and thus would not have been mentioned on his Arch as an ancestor, had this been known then. It looks like Maximilian even had his own version of the Roman "Romulus and Remus" foundation story, with his ancient ancestors heading in the "right" direction from Rome to Austria!  If this story means the Castle Habsburg in nearby Switzerland, then it might be a whole lot older (or younger with revised chronology) than the 1020 proposed dating!
Speaking of two founding brothers, Norix the son of Hercules, founder of Austria. had a brother Tuscus, whom Hercules appointed as king of Italy in the year 625 after the Flood, at a great ceremony in Viterbe, the capital of Tuscany. The appointment of Tuscus was 273 years after the marriage of his grandparents Osiris and Isis, and is another indication of great longevity. If Tuscus, supposedly the ancient Habsburg ancestor, ruled from Tuscany, that would give him a relationship to the much later Colonna and Pierleoni rulers of Tuscany, and thus incorporate them as Habsburg relatives also. In this version of "ancient history", Tuscus was the male line ancestor of the Royal House of Troy, going down in the male line from them to Clovis, the first King of France, and then the Habsburgs. Another branch of the Trojan royal house were also the male line ancestors of Julius Caesar, and so he gets included as a Habsburg relative too. The coat of arms of modern Viterbo includes a LION (like Troy and the early Habsburg Counts), representing Hercules, one of the mythological founders of Viterbo.


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 23, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> "The old Roman name for Austria, Noricum, invited the possibility that Austria was founded by Norix, the son of Hercules, who, *coming from the lands about Armenia*, had invested his heirs with Austria and Bavaria respectively. The Habsburgs were also swift to discover Roman credentials of their own, promoting their supposed descent from the allegedly senatorial family of Colonna. Chroniclers added to the story, describing how two brothers exiled from ancient ROME *had gone NORTH of the Alps*, one of whom went on to found Castle Habsburg."





Fawkes said:


> It looks like Maximilian even had his own version of the Roman "Romulus and Remus" foundation story, with his ancient ancestors heading in *the "right" direction from Rome to Austria*!


Show me the sources!!! Please! It's a pain to discuss things through the lens of historians. Were these statements written in black on white on parchment? Or is it the scholars' interpretation?
Why Austria is declared 'eastern kingdom' by 'Julius and Nero'? Is it because Stabius was drunk that day?

The whole story of Greek heroes coming from the middle-east was confusing even for classical authors. Here Vinci gives another more proper geographical location for the legendary voyages of Ulysses and the locations of the Greeks and the Troyans based on Homer's epics (Homer in the Baltic).
Did these heroes come alone or were they accompanied by some other people?


> A literary tradition arose, which saw the Austrians as descendants of the *Goths *of classical antiquity, or which proposed an even more illustrious descent from *Greek and Roman* heroes. (Habsburgs: Losing Place and Forging a Past)


Edit: I'm obviously suggesting a strict relation between these people. The Normans invaded Britain and conquered Jerusalem in the same way their anagram counterpart allegedly did 1000 years before.

re-Edit: by the way @Fawkes, I know I am a nuisance, but this link-page Habsburgs: Losing Place and Forging a Past beginning with a Yt video called 'The Origins of the Habsburgs Explained' is the shittiest thing ever. I literally HATE those who write _explained _in their videos and then proceed to reapeat what they read on the official narrative book written for them by others. Sorry if I bother you


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> Were these statements written in black on white on parchment? Or is it the scholars' interpretation?


Bavaria is included too in this "Annolied"  - 
Bavaria's Armenian Legend - History Of Armenia


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> It's obviously related to Lewis *Carroll *and 'Alice's Adventures in Wonderland' - that rabbit was obsessed with chronology.


Not as daft as it sounds.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 23, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Chroniclers added to the story, describing how two brothers exiled from ancient ROME had gone NORTH of the Alps, one of whom went on to found Castle Habsburg."





Fawkes said:


> It looks like Maximilian even had his own version of the Roman "Romulus and Remus" foundation story, with his ancient ancestors heading in the "right" direction from Rome to Austria!


The "official" history of the Habsburgs actually does have two brothers,  Count Radbot and Bishop Werner, involved in the founding of Habsburg Castle about 1020, around the time when history began to be recorded, according to Fomenko. What if the Habsburgs themselves, as World Emperors, created this "official" history from 1000 AD (Werner became Bishop of Strasbourg in 1001, technically the start of a new millennium Werner de Habsbourg — Wikipédia Werner I. von Habsburg – Wikipedia), and those two ancient Roman Habsburg brothers are actually "ghosted" on to the two 11th century Habsburg brothers?  Radbot and Werner may have been the true "Romulus and Remus" founders of the Habsburg "Roman" Empire, but not in 753 BC, and definitely not in Rome. Radbot could be the brother who founded the "Romulus" royal line of the Habsburgs, while his brother Werner had no issue, like "Remus".
It might have been the Habsburgs who started this revised chronology in the first place, and after brothers Radbot and Werner established the Muri Abbey soon afterwards, in 1027, the Benedictine monks there would compose the first "official" Habsburg history, the _Acta Murensius, about the year 1160. By comparison with Muri Abbey, it may be noted that the earlier "Counts of Habsburg" were associated with *St. Trudpert's Abbey, another Benedictine monastery.
In 1476 a Swiss monk, Heinrich von Gundelfingen, produced a new genealogy, showing that the Habsburgs were actually descendants of the Pierleoni family. This genealogy might have been prepared for Maximilian's wedding the following year to Mary of Burgundy. St. Benedict (480-543), the founder of the Benedictine order, was supposed to be part of this family, thus "confirming" the Habsburg connection to this order. By 1515, however, Maximilian favored a Trojan/Merovingian ancestry, for his male line origin on the Arch he created.*_
_*If any of this is true, then perhaps the Russian oriented Fomenko could not bring himself to realize that the Habsburg world rulers were not modeled on the Russian ones, but vice versa. Yes, all of this Habsburg history and dating could have been made up by the Habsburgs themselves, with the help of the Benedictines that they were so long associated with, and sponsored. *_


----------



## Jd755 (Nov 24, 2021)

I don't know who did this colour version or when but I found it here Die Welt der Habsburger
and used tineye to find the biggest version I could in the hopes the colour may add to the investigation.
Later today I will pull out the 1897 National encyclopedia I have here all 14 volumes of the thing and see what it has to say.

Link


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 24, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Bavaria is included too in this "Annolied" -
> Bavaria's Armenian Legend - History Of Armenia


Thanks. It would be nice to read it directly, instead of the usual 'summaries'. I really want to try and learn some Latin.
In any case a thought immediately comes to mind, which is the possibility that Armenia was originally (H)armenia, and therefore Germany. Did the author speak of _Germans _in it? Or maybe he simply and more appropritely talked about _Deutsche _people? Or maybe he simply talked about Armenians and Bavarians! We should read the text to know it. IF this is true then we can throw the 'semitic-Armenians-in-Germany-theory' where it belongs: the trash can. And Bavarians remain a European people coming from other places in Europe.


Fawkes said:


> What if the Habsburgs themselves, as World Emperors, created this "official" history from 1000 AD (Werner became Bishop of Strasbourg in 1001, technically the start of a new millennium Werner de Habsbourg — Wikipédia Werner I. von Habsburg – Wikipedia), and those two ancient Roman Habsburg brothers are actually "ghosted" on to the two 11th century Habsburg brothers? Radbot and Werner may have been the true "Romulus and Remus" founders of the Habsburg "Roman" Empire, but not in 753 BC, and definitely not in Rome. Radbot could be the brother who founded the "Romulus" royal line of the Habsburgs, while his brother Werner had no issue, like "Remus".


You forgot the she-wolf.


kd-755 said:


> I don't know who did this colour version or when but I found it here Die Welt der Habsburger
> and used tineye to find the biggest version I could in the hopes the colour may add to the investigation.
> Later today I will pull out the 1897 National encyclopedia I have here all 14 volumes of the thing and see what it has to say.


Great finding and colours are definitively useful for what we are doing. I am gonna ask to place this picture in the OP.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 24, 2021)

kd-755 said:


> I don't know who did this colour version or when but I found it here Die Welt der Habsburger
> and used tineye to find the biggest version I could in the hopes the colour may add to the investigation.
> Later today I will pull out the 1897 National encyclopedia I have here all 14 volumes of the thing and see what it has to say.


Ditto to what Silveryou said to you!!! 


Silveryou said:


> You forgot the she-wolf.


HaHa, apparently the she-wolf "Lupus" designation morphed into "Luitgard" von Nellenburg, the supposed mother of Werner and Radbot, and this is really quite appropriate, as "Luitgard" comes from Old High German, and means "[female] guardian of the people", just as "Lupus" the she-wolf was! Both origin stories also have auspicious birds leading them to the spot where Rome/Habsburg Castle was to be built. 


Silveryou said:


> Thanks. It would be nice to read it directly, instead of the usual 'summaries'.


You are most welcome. Try this complete translation I just found. Look at section 20, where it says that Armenia was where the Ark of Noah landed, and it is said they still speak German there, all the way towards India! Later sections describe how the Germans joined the army of Julius Caesar and helped raise him to supreme power, as the Franks were his Trojan cousins!!! A very interesting read for us, I think. Graeme Dunphy | Medieval / Das Annolied


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 25, 2021)

"Österreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften" (_*Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers) -*_​_*"The Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers (Österreichische Chronik von den 95 Herrschaften )Austrian Chronicle of the 95 Rulers - Wikipedia of Leopold von Wien (formerly known as Leopold Steinreuter) Leopold von Wien – Wikipedia of Vienna (lived ca. 1340–1400) is a 14th-century chronicle compiled by order of Albert III, Duke of Austria (the Habsburgs commissioned this work).

From Fictitious Habsburg Genealogies genealogy project - *_

*"Chronik der 95 Herrschaften (Chronicle of 95 Seigneurs) by Leopold of Vienna (Leopold Stainreuter) (late 14th century).* A compilation of the 95 rulers of Austria from Noah down to the present. In 1453 Frederick III (the father of Maximilian I, who created the Arch) used this compilation to have a memorial created in St. George’s church in the castle at Wiener Neustadt. The memorial shows 107 coats of arms, most of them the imaginary arms of fictitious Austrian rulers from Noah down to himself. Frederick had himself portrayed in the central field as ruler of the Austrian domains."
Volume 2 Chapter 3
Volume 2 Chapter 4
(a listing of the Austrian rulers in English)


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 25, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> A very interesting read for us, I think. Graeme Dunphy | Medieval / Das Annolied


Great finding. The stuff I like!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 25, 2021)

The Worldwide Church of God changed the narrative of the original German text to suit their agenda. However, even they stated in their abridged English translation that the "The most ancient Greek name for the Danube River was the River Noe. Noe is the Greek form of the Hebrew Noah", and they also admitted that "Several of the earliest geographic names in the Chronicle are otherwise unknown from contemporary records".


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 25, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> "The most ancient Greek name for the Danube River was the River Noe. Noe is the Greek form of the Hebrew Noah"


Funny how one of 'my' most cited books, the Alexiad by Anna Komnene, used by historians to describe the first crusade from the 'byzantine' point of view, says that (book VII, paragraph II - http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/alexiad_dawes.pdf):


> It has not only one name, for in its upper reaches and near its source it is called the ‘*Danube*,’ whilst in the lower and at its mouths, the ‘*Ister*.’


She also says (book VII, paragraph III - http://www.yorku.ca/inpar/alexiad_dawes.pdf):


> *This important town, which is situated on the Ister, *did not always bear this barbaric name, but a Greek one, for it both was, and *was called, a great city, namely, Megalopolis.* But *from the time that Mocrus, King of the Bulgarians*, and his descendants, and finally Samuel, the last of the Bulgarian dynasty (as Zedekiah of the Jewish) overran the West, *the town acquired a double name,* retaining ‘great’ from the Greek language and adding a Slavic word, *and was universally spoken of as “Great Pristhlava.”*


No mention of a Jewish possesion at all, and the bold statement that the region was 'Greek' and the most important town was called Megalopolis. This town was said to be founded by the general Epaminondas in the most mysterious region of ancient Greece: Arcadia. It is said that Evander esatablished the first colony on the territory of the future Rome coming from the city of Pallantium in Arcadia, the region of the god Pan. Coincidentally the region around the Danube was called Pannonia.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 25, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It is said that Evander esatablished the first colony on the territory of the future Rome coming from the city of Pallantium in Arcadia, the region of the god Pan. Coincidentally the region around the Danube was called Pannonia.


Otto von Habsburg, the oldest son and heir of the last Austrian Emperor Blessed Karl, was President of the PANeuropean Union, the oldest European unification movement.  Paneuropean Union - Wikipedia


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 26, 2021)

Fawkes said:


> Otto von Habsburg, the oldest son and heir of the last Austrian Emperor Blessed Karl, was President of the PANeuropean Union, the oldest European unification movement. Paneuropean Union - Wikipedia


I guess they like playing with words.


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 26, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> I guess they like playing with words.


Speaking of word descriptions, IMHO, with all of his very real accomplishments, Crown Prince Otto was truly the "Uncrowned Emperor", a title of his biography. Counting him, the Habsburgs were on the pages of millennial history from 1001, when Werner became Bishop of Strasbourg, until Crown Prince Otto resigned as President of the Paneuropean Union in 2004. He passed away within his 99th year in 2011, the year before the supposed "End" of the Mayan calendar.


Silveryou said:


> one of 'my' most cited books, the Alexiad by Anna Komnene


Avant garde royal researcher Charles N. Pope, who created the "Domain of Man" website, believes that a brother of Anna, John II Komnenos (13 September 1087 – 8 April 1143), who succeeded as Byzantine emperor, was also the identity of *Fulk the Younger*,(c. 1089/92 – 13 November 1143) the count of Anjou (as *Fulk V*) from 1109 to 1129 and the king of Jerusalem from 1131 to his death. During his reign, the Kingdom of Jerusalem reached its largest territorial extent. Also, according to Pope, the great-great-grandson of John/Fulk, the Plantagenet King Henry III of England, established a native Austrian identity and dynasty, of first Habsburg Emperor Rudolf I, by which he could succeed his own brother Richard as "King of the Romans" (Henry "passed away" in 1272, and Rudolf began his rule the very next year). Henry/Rudolf also successfully reunited the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Greek) Empires and churches by recovering the Byzantine throne as Michael VIII.


----------



## Sasyexa (Nov 27, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> the Alexiad


A bit off-topic, but does anyone have scans of the original (or scans of the manuscripts closest to original) Alexiad?


----------



## Silveryou (Nov 28, 2021)

Sasyexa said:


> A bit off-topic, but does anyone have scans of the original (or scans of the manuscripts closest to original) Alexiad?


Never found anything whatsoever. The current Alexiad is certainly incomplete and probably manipulated (certainly by omission, since various names and dates have been deleted). I still consider it a valid source of information because the things said therein are very akward. In any case the manuscripts used for the 'final' rendition are probably those listed in the wiki (Alexiad - Wikipedia):

Codex Coislinianus 311, in Fonds Coislin (Paris)
Codex Florentinus 70,2
Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1438
Codex Barberinianus 235 & 236
Codex Ottobonianus Graecus 131 & 137
Codex Apographum Gronovii
Codex Vaticanus Graecus 981 (prologue and summary)
Codex Monacensis Graecus 355 (prologue and summary)
Codex Parisinus Graecus 400 (prologue and summary)
Good luck!


----------



## Fawkes (Nov 30, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> It is said that Evander esatablished the first colony on the territory of the future Rome coming from the city of Pallantium in Arcadia, the region of the god Pan. Coincidentally the region around the Danube was called Pannonia.


"In addition, Strabo mentions a story that Rome was an Arcadian colony founded by Evander.[2]" Evander was the son of Hermes, and generally Pan was also the son of Hermes, making them half-brothers, with Evander the father-in-law of Hercules, the father of Fabius (progenitor of the Roman Fabii), and a descendant Fausta the ancestress of St. Clothilde, wife of Clovis, the beginning male line ancestor of Maximilian I on his Arch.


----------



## ViniB (Dec 22, 2021)

Interesting thread for sure! In summary, what we have is an arch with a supposed very old chronology, going back to the 11th century, some books about it (most likelly copies discovered in some library in the 16/17th century with no original sources, just and only copies), a building also supposed from the early 1000s, mythical character like Hercules on the genealogy and also God himself lol the lack of original source is the core of the problem as i see It. We have tte usual "historians" say x according to books from y century that were discovered in z century......
I'll call fake/made up/manipulation/cover up history, it has all the signs


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 22, 2021)

ViniB said:


> I'll call fake/made up/manipulation/cover up history, it has all the signs



...or maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think.


----------



## ViniB (Dec 22, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> ...or maybe that's exactly what "they" want you to think.


Nah, from the connection to greek mythology aka pagan gods, biblical mythology too (adam) and all that i already said, we have IMO a classical narrative to establish control by royalty, kinda like how the british royals did to establish their power


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 23, 2021)

ViniB said:


> Nah, from the connection to greek mythology aka pagan gods, biblical mythology too (adam) and all that i already said, we have IMO a classical narrative to establish control by royalty, kinda like how the british royals did to establish their power



But the point is, it doesn't agree with "fake/made up/manipulation/cover up history."


----------



## ViniB (Dec 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> But the point is, it doesn't agree with "fake/made up/manipulation/cover up history."


Why it doesn't?? A genealogy like that, full of myths, to me is just that, a myth too


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 23, 2021)

ViniB said:


> Why it doesn't?? A genealogy like that, full of myths, to me is just that, a myth too



...never mind.


----------



## ViniB (Dec 23, 2021)

Will Scarlet said:


> ...never mind.


No, please, i'm curious, if i'm proved wrong i'll correct myself


----------



## Will Scarlet (Dec 23, 2021)

ViniB said:


> No, please, i'm curious,



Its all in the OP:



Silveryou said:


> The list of Roman Emperors on the left is different from the official one, there are fewer emperors than there should be, no distinction between Eastern and Western Roman Empires, no gap between the Roman Empire of old and the Holy Roman Empire, some not recognised Emperors...





Silveryou said:


> TOTAL EMPERORS OMITTED: 117





Silveryou said:


> So, let's do a recap:
> 
> _The crown and the Archduke's hat which cap the two towers signify that the Archduchy of Austria derives from what the emperors Julius and Nero called the Mark of the Rising Sun, the oldest free principality. From it derives the Kingdom of Hungary, formerly called Sicambria._
> _The Merovingian dynasty extends back to the first king of France; who is descended from the magnanimous Hector of Troy and who conquered the Pannonian territories, now known as Hungary and Austria, and gained victory over the Sicambrians, subsequently known as the Franks, and over the Gauls._





Silveryou said:


> I think there is a problem with the true identity of these people: Troyans, Sicambrians and Franks.
> 
> My interpretation is that the Troyan lineage was obviously present at Troy and represented by the Rampant Lion, then they moved to Sicambria (the territory of modern Austria/Hungary), subduing and merging with the Sicambrians, who were Troyans as well, and therefore retaining the Rampant Lion as a symbol. Then, proceeding with the name of Sicambrians, they moved to the Rhine territory, where they became known as Salian Franks (Salian Franks - Wikipedia), and subsequently merged with the Ripuarian Franks (Ripuarian Franks - Wikipedia), also known as Franks, whose symbol were the three frogs (?! - I can't recognize this symbol), and giving birth to France as a nation.


----------



## Silveryou (Dec 23, 2021)

ViniB said:


> A genealogy like that, full of myths, to me is just that, a myth too


This is just my take on the issue, so it's personal and subjective, but I would reverse your point of view by saying that what we call _myths_ was _history _a few hundred years ago. It seems that these stories, widely believed until the 16th century suddenly became myth and made space to our modern narrative based on Graeco-Roman classics. It seems that the meaning of Graeco-Roman was different too at that time and had to do with stories about Trojans. This is why I sympathise with the Habsburgs here and think Maximilian's genealogy could be much more correct than what is commonly believed by our mainstrem historians.
By the way, just to be clear, the roots of this genealogy here represented stop at the Trojan link, no Adams and Osirises involved. Osiris is mentioned but *not linked* to the genealogy, which is in open contradiction with all the other subsequent genealogies presented in the various posts of this thread


----------



## ViniB (Dec 23, 2021)

Silveryou said:


> This is just my take on the issue, so it's personal and subjective, but I would reverse your point of view by saying that what we call _myths_ was _history _a few hundred years ago. It seems that these stories, widely believed until the 16th century suddenly became myth and made space to our modern narrative based on Graeco-Roman classics. It seems that the meaning of Graeco-Roman was different too at that time and had to do with stories about Trojans. This is why I sympathise with the Habsburgs here and think Maximilian's genealogy could be much more correct than what is commonly believed by our mainstrem historians.
> By the way, just to be clear, the roots of this genealogy here represented stop at the Trojan link, no Adams and Osirises involved. Osiris is mentioned but *not linked* to the genealogy, which is in open contradiction with all the other subsequent genealogies presented in the various posts of this thread


Ohh i finally understood! It was a long and somewhat complicated thread, so i got confused on my thinking, thanks for making it simple to understand  on the note of being recent i agree 100% a member on another thread talked about rome and Troy being possible duplicates, something else to dig deeper, to see where it will fit on the bigger puzzle


----------

