Megathread: An explanation on why Racism has created historical errors

[LeePappas]

Moderator note:

I have merged all of LeePappas’ content into one mega thread of sorts to keep things a bit cleaner. It may look a bit messy in terms of the posts and replies but hopefully people should understand what is going on here, especially if you’ve already read through the individual threads.
-Trismegistus

In this post I aim to show that Rome was founded on April 1st 685 BC. The first king of Rome changed the month names of the calendar previously in use, to commemorate the event. Simply by performing an in depth etymology of the word 'April' a fantastic amount of history can be uncovered.

To begin with, I used my limited knowledge of Greek to wonder why Roman month names are built from Greek words. The etymology of the last month reveals it is derived from the Greek word for ten.

deka [Greek] = decem [Latin] = ten

The other equations are:

Ena[Greek]= Unum [Latin]=one
Hexi [Greek]=Sextem [Latin]=six
Epta[Greek]=Septem[Latin]=seven
Octo[Greek]=Octem [Latin]=eight
Enneia [Greek]=Novem[Latin]=nine

March, April, and May, aren't derivatives of numbers, so I began to wonder about their etymologies. March and May proved elusive initially, but I found success with April.

I used the Scott-Liddell Greek English dictionary to look up all words starting with 'apr', and there was only one: aperro. It's last letter is actually omega not omicron, so if you look it up in Perseus Digital Library you have to enter aperrw. Here's what you will find:

Aperro = gone

Then I researched the Roman word for the month of April, and discovered it was Aprilis.

Then I asked myself what was gone+Ilis? It meant nothing to me, but I knew enough Greek to solve the problem.

Helios[Greek]=ilius[Latin]=sun.

Thus the etymology of April is

Aperrilius=Aprilius=Aprilis=April=gone+sun

It was then I suspected there was an ancient eclipse and the people who lived through it changed the month names of the previous calendar to commemorate the eclipse event. Subsequently I reconstructed that new calendar as:

Unius
Martius
Aprilius
Maius
Quinctilius
Sextilius
Septembrilius
Octobrilius
Novembrilius
Decembrilius

The words Quinctilius, sextilius, septembrilius, Octobrilius, and Decembrilius all can be found in extant Latin documents.

Then I found the following passage in Plutarch's the life of Romulus:

"At the present time, indeed, there is no agreement between the Roman and Greek months, but they say that the day on which Romulus founded his city was precisely the thirtieth of the month, and that on that day there was a conjunction of the sun and moon, with an eclipse, which they think was the one seen by Antimachus, the epic poet of Teos, in the third year of the sixth Olympiad."

I then learned about eclipses and found out they can only occur on a new moon, when the sun, moon, and earth are in a straight line.

Thus I was off and running. Rome was founded on the day of a solar eclipse, and the Romans who apparently spoke Greek at that time, renamed the month the eclipse happened in Aprilius to commemorate the event. The new moon was always at the start of the month, so that eclipse happened April 1st. The only thing left was to find the year, and I knew the only way to do that is to use astronomy software.

You may wonder why I decided the founders of Rome spoke Greek, and not proto-Latin. Again, we can go to the word 'aperro'. The fact that the word has double R, indicates the word breaks there, that is aperro=aper+ro.

Now in Greek when you want to convert a word to it's opposite, you prefix it with the letter 'a'. For example:
Abaris(ahvareece)= light, not heavy
Barus(vareece)=heavy
Thus, aperro is actually composed of three Greek words: aperro=a+per+ro.
In my Divry Greek English dictionary, it has
Pera=over, across, through

Therefore aperro=not+through+ro.

I looked up 'per' in Perseus Digital Library and it meant 'at' in ancient Greek. Thus I concluded:
Aperro= not+at+Ro.

And I guessed that the Romans somehow knew, prior to renaming the month Aperrilius, that the eclipse wasn't visible at the island of Rhodes.

Then I performed an etymology on Rhodes, and came up with: Ro+edo.
Ro shows up in Romani, and in modern Greek edo=here.
Mani [Latin]=hands
So, Romani=Romans=row+hands, and Rhodes= row+here.

Since it is Greek and not Latin in which prefixing a word with 'a' means the opposite, I decided they spoke Greek rather than some form of ancient Latin.

Then, on a hunch, I performed an etymology on
'Hiroshima'.
Hi=day
Shima = island
So, Hiroshima=day+Ro+island.

So there may be a connection.

As to how determined the eclipse happened in 685 BC, that's really complicated. For starters I went looking for an ancient Historian I could trust. I decided I would need to know when he wrote, and I found Dionysius of Halicarnassus author of 'Roman Antiquities'. I wanted information on Rome obviously, and he fit the bill. I started from the beginning, and he said this:

"For from the very beginning, immediately after her founding, she began to draw to herself the neighbouring nations, which were both numerous and warlike, and continually advanced, subjugating every rival. And it is now seven hundred and forty-five years from her foundation down to the consulship of Claudius Nero, consul for the second time, and of Calpurnius Piso, who were chosen in the one hundred and ninety-third Olympiad.9 5 From the time that she mastered the whole of Italy she was emboldened to aspire to p13 govern all mankind, and after driving from off the sea the Carthaginians, whose maritime strength was superior to that of all others, and subduing Macedonia, which until then was reputed to be the most powerful nation on land, she no longer had as rival any nation either barbarian or Greek..."

Then I went to the consul list, having just discovered there was such a thing, and I found this:

7 BCTib. Claudius Nero II Cn. Calpurnius Piso

Many sources claimed Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, so I felt I could trust Nero and Piso were consuls in 7 BC, I felt the list was right about that 7 BC date.

Now I was getting somewhere.

Then I thought about the calendar. I knew there was a point in time that the Romans changed from a ten month to a twelve month calendar. I needed to know when that change happened to find the year of the eclipse.

After a bit of searching I came across Censorinus's De Die Natali Liber. In it I found this:

"adeo aberratum est, ut C. Caesar pontifex maximus suo III et M. Aemilii Lepidi consulatu, quo retro delictum corrigeret, duos menses intercalarios dierum LXVII in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, cum iam mense Februario dies III et XX intercalasset, faceretque eum annum dierum CCCCXLV, simul providens in futurum, ne iterum erraretur: nam intercalario mense sublato annum civilem ad solis cursum formavit."

Translation: so much so aberrated it is, that C. Caesar the Pontifex Maximus his 3rd and M. Ameilii Lepidus consuls, where back offense would correct, two intercalary months of days 67 in the months of November and December put in between, with already the month February days 3 and 20 intercalated, making his year of days 445, simultaneously providing in the future, no more mistakes, for intercalary month lifted up civil year to sun's course formed.

Then I went to the consul list and found 46 BC was the year of Caesar 3rd and Lepidus consuls. Then I read that that year was referred to as the Ultimus Anno Confusionis, or Last Year of Confusion. At this point I felt like I had enough information to figure out when the calendar change occurred.

445-67-23=355 days

If Ceasar didn't 'intercalate' 90 days, then that year would have had 355 days. How can a year have 355 days I thought. Then I reasoned that calendar was a compromise between a lunar and solar calendar, and I formulated this:

Ianuarius 30
Februarius 29
Martius 30
Aprilius 29
Maius 30
Unius 29
Quinctilius 30
Sextilius 29
Septembrilius 30
Octobrilius 29
Novembrilius 30
Decembrilius 29

The days add up to 354, so I knew I had the right idea with that calendar.

Then i came across something called the Octaeteris. It's a period of almost eight tropical years. The source mentioned the Octaeteris had a 22 or 23 day intercalary month. It didn't take me long to figure out how it worked.

Octaeteris

Year 1: 376 days
Year 2: 354 days
Year 3: 376 days
Year 4: 354 days
Year 5: 376 days
Year 6: 354 days
Year 7: 376 days
Year 8: 354 days

376*4+354*4=2920, and 2920/8= 365

Thus the Octaeteris had an average year of 365 days, with a 22 day intercalary month called Mercedinus intercalated every other year.

As of 46 BC the tropical year was thought to be about 365.25 days. According to Censorinus Julius Caesar added 90 days to the calendar in 46 BC. It made sense to me that he was trying to get the vernal equinox back to where it was when the Octaeteris was implemented. A better value was obtained by 1582, the year the intergravissimas Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII went into effect. It approximated the tropical year at 365.2425 days.

Slip rate=.2425 days per year
90 days/.2425 days per year=371 years

371+46=417

So the Octaeteris went into effect around 417 BC.

But could I get a better approximation?

I began to not trust Censorinus, because he claimed the intercalary month was 23 days, when now I knew it was 22. After some thought it occurred to me that Caesar would have waited until the end of an Octaeterian cycle to add the 90 days. With that one idea, I could improve on my date of 417 BC. Here's how I did it.

(417-46)/8=46.375

So that's not a whole number of Octaeterian cycles, the information in Censorinus is badly flawed.

Then I began to suspect the 90 days were added in 45 BC not 46 BC, because Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, and I figured the events were related. So I did this:

(412 - 44)=368, 368/8=46
(420-44)=372, 372/8=47

Thus, the Octaeteris was implemented in 412 or 420 BC.

If 412 BC, then the vernal equinox slipped 368*.2425=89 days.

If 420 BC, then the vernal equinox slipped 372*.2425=90 days.

So what was this magical day the Romans were trying to get the vernal equinox on? Aprilius 1st the founding date of Rome of course. It's near to March 21st where it is today, so that's a good guess.

Then I used a spreadsheet with all the Roman consuls, from 44 BC backwards to the first consuls at Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus. Eventually I ruled out 420 BC. Thus I could get the Julian day number of the day of implementation of the Octaeteris to within a few days, if I knew the precise time of year of one vernal equinox, and the precise value of one tropical year.

Modern sources place the value of one tropical year at 365.2422 days.

At this point I downloaded Home Planet astronomy software.

It has the 1582 vernal equinox on midnight March 21st, Julian day number 2298952.5 [exact value].

412 BC vernal equinox
2298952.5 - (1582+412)*365.2422=1570659.55
Aprilius 1, 412 BC=1570659.5

Therefore January 1st, 412 BC =
1570569.5 -30-29-30=1570570.5
Day 1 of the Octaeteris= 1570570.5

Now to find the year of the eclipse, we can make use of the following information in Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Roman Antiquities:

"74 1 As to the last settlement or founding of the city, or whatever we ought to call it, Timaeus of Sicily,196 following what principle I do not know, places it at the same time as the founding of Carthage, that is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first Olympiad;197 Lucius Cincius, a member of the senate, places it about the fourth year of the twelfth Olympiad,198 and Quintus Fabius in the first year of the eighth Olympiad.199 2 Porcius Cato does not give the time according to Greek reckoning, but being as careful as any writer in gathering the date of ancient history, he places its founding four hundred and thirty-two years after the Trojan war; and this p247 time, being compared with the Chronicles of Eratosthenes,200 corresponds to the first year of the seventh Olympiad.201 That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I have shown in another treatise,202 where I have also shown how the Roman chronology is to be synchronized with that of the Greeks. 3 For I did not think it sufficient, like Polybius of Megalopolis,203 to say merely that I believe Rome was built in the second year of the seventh Olympiad,204 nor to let my belief rest without further examination upon the single tablet preserved by the high priests, the only one of its kind, but I determined to set forth the reasons that had appealed to me, so that all might examine them who so desired. 4 In that treatise, therefore, the detailed exposition is given; but in the course of the present work also the most essential of the conclusions there reached will be mentioned. The matter stands thus: It is generally agreed that the invasion of the Gauls,205 during which the city of Rome was taken, happened during the archonship of Pyrgion at Athens, in the first year of the ninety-eighth Olympiad.206 Now if the time before the taking of the city is reckoned back to Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls at Rome after the overthrow of the kings, it comprehends one hundred p249 and twenty years. 5 This is proved in many other ways, but particularly by the records of the censors, which receives in succession from the father and takes great care to transmit to posterity, like family rites; and there are many illustrious men of censorian families who preserve these records. In them I find that in the second year before the taking of the city there was a census of the Roman people, to which, as to the rest of them, there is affixed the date, as follows: "In the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus, in the one hundred and nineteenth year after the expulsion of the kings." 6 So that the Gallic invasion, which we find to have occurred in the second year after the census, happened when the hundred and twenty years were completed. If, now, this interval of time is found to consist of thirty Olympiads, it must be allowed that the first consuls to be chosen entered upon their magistracy in the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the same year that Isagoras was archon at Athens."

In the Roman Consul list, Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus were consuls in the 117th year after the expulsion of the kings, so Dionysus lied there by two years. You discover this by actually counting the consuls, which I didn't do initially.

He continues:

"75 1 And, again, if from the expulsion of the kings the time is reckoned back to Romulus, the first ruler of the city, it amounts to two hundred and forty-four years. This is known from the order in which the kings succeeded one another and the number of years each of them ruled. For Romulus, the founder p251 of Rome, reigned thirty-seven years, it is said, and after his death the city was a year without a king. 2 Then Numa Pompilius, who was chosen by the people, reigned forty-three years; after Numa, Tullus Hostilius thirty-two; and his successor, Ancus Marcius, twenty-four; after Marcius, Lucius Tarquinius, called Priscus, thirty-eight; Servius Tullius, who succeeded him, forty-four. And the slayer of Servius, Lucius Tarquinius, the tyrannical prince who, from his contempt of justice, was called Superbus, extended his reign to the twenty-fifth year. 3 As the reigns, therefore, of the kings amount to two hundred and forty-four years or sixty-one Olympiads, it follows necessarily that Romulus, the first ruler of the city, began his reign in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, when Charops at Athens was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon.208 For the count of the years requires this; and that each king reigned the number of years is shown in that treatise of mine to which I have referred."

Olympiad 195, year 1= 1 BC, therefore
Olympiad 92, year 2=412 BC.
Now go back to the first consuls at Rome.
Correcting for Dionysius' 2-year lie, the first consuls of Rome took office on Unius 1, Olympiad 68 year 3. 92-68=24, there were four years per Olympiad, 24*4=96. So the first consuls of Rome took office 94 lunar years before Julian day number 1570570.5. The Roman kings ruled for 244 lunar years, according to Dionysius' sources. 94+244=338.

One 10-month lunar year=295.306 days.
Thus the eclipse happened 338 lunar years before 1570570.5.
338*295.306=99814
1570570.5-99814=1470757.5

The eclipse happened around 1470757.5

Using Fourmilab Calendar Converter you find:
September 12, 687 BC = 1470757.5.

Looking at all the new moons around that time, I found the Julian day number of the eclipse.

Eclipse visible from Rome on Julian day number 1470868.5.

The software says that was 686 BC, but I claimed at the start of the thread that the eclipse took place in 685 BC, how can this be?

The answer is there was a year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD.

PROOF THERE WAS A ZERO BC

To accomplish this proof let's find day one of the Julian calendar under the assumption that Julius Caesar added 89 days to the calendar in 45 BC.

(412-44)*365+89 = 134409

1570570.5 + 134409 = 1704979.5 = Ianuarius 1, 44 BC = day 1 of the Julian calendar

2451544.5 = January 1st, 2000

2451544.5 - 1704979.55 = 746565

746565/365.25= 2043.983

Therefore from day one of the Julian calendar to January 1st 2000, there were 2044 years.

Assume incorrectly that there was no zero BC.

From January 1, 1 AD to January 1, 2000 AD, there were 1999 years. From January 1, 44 BC to January 1, 1 AD there were 44 years. 1999+44=2043. Using Julian day numbers we know that this had to be 2044, therefore there was a 0 BC.

Q.E.D.

QED=quod erat demonstrandum= which was to be demonstrated

Therefore, the solar eclipse that marks the founding date of Rome occurred on Julian day number 1470868.5=Aprilius 1, 685 BC = January 8, 686 BC [Gregorian proleptic], which was to be demonstrated. Q.E.D.

 

[LeePappas]

My research is trying to prove that racism played a larger role in ancient history than is currently understood, inasmuch as the Carthaginians and 2/3 of the ancient Hebrews were black. Roman sources were trying to confuse speakers of Greek, a language known well by ancient Hebrews, in order to keep knowledge away from them. For instance, they didn't want the Jews to know about the April 1st 685 BC eclipse, given that they knew aperro=gone and ilius=sun, so very ancient Romans placed a 1 year lie in the reign lengths of the Roman kings, then when the Jews got wise to that, they further conflated the issue with Varro's 4 dictator years lie. As another example, they wanted to hide Nero's torture of the early Christians (Jewish revolution sympathizers) who set fire to the Circus Maximus on June 19, 65 AD [Augustinian], because they knew the Jewish revolutionaries had figured out that the 46 BC vernal equinox fell on June 19th [Augustinian proleptic]. There was a tit for tat going on between the Romans and the Jews for several centuries. I can show, by my analysis of the Hebrew Kings, that the Hebrews had figured out that the numbers 222, 555, and 777 were being used by the Romans to inflict harm on them. The Romans in turn had figured out that the Jews used 412+555=967 BC for the public date of the foundation of Solomon's Temple, and (934-932 BC) privately. Herod the Great knew that 2 year range, that's why he ordered the massacre of Jewish infants 2 and under. He was trying to kill hope of a Jewish Messiah. To Hebrews, the Messiah was a warrior who would free them from Roman tyranny, not the son of God. In short, the Romans wanted a monopoly on knowledge, that's why they set January 1,. 1579=2297777.5 so far in the future, relative to them.

So my overarching hypothesis as to why certain dates and times in recorded history are slightly off is that there were back and forth lies being told by black Hebrews and white Romans, and we pay the price for historical confusion.

By proving that a timeline is off by even a year is a significant advance in the quest for universal truth, which I would argue is the entire goal of history.

My thesis is a sensitive issue, which is why I haven't explicitly formulated it in any of my previous threads. You see, my research has brought me to the inescapable conclusion that Jesus Christ was black, and crucified on April 1st 777 AUC [Augustinian].

 

[Jd755]

Interesting theory.
How did you establish this chap was real as in a flesh and blood character who lived and died and not some fictitious character in an invented historical narrative?

The first king of Rome

 

[Frostychud]

Hello and welcome to the site.

First of all, thank you for sharing your theory and your ideas.

I am going to emit a criticism, and I hope to do so respectfully, as I have learned always to try to stay humble. I do not know the truth and I am willing at any moment to change my mind when faced with new evidence.

My criticism concerns a larger epistemological phenomenon I have observed. We use numbers, dates, letters, words, and historical texts to try to discern the truth. But the more clever we are, the easier it is to begin to see patterns in the symbols we study.

But what if it's a trap? What if our symbolic systems are less transparent than they appear? What if they were designed precisely to generate spontaneous patterns?

What if the eclipse days are invented by forgers to begin with?

What if the dates are all made up?

Let me give a concrete example:

"At the present time, indeed, there is no agreement between the Roman and Greek months, but they say that the day on which Romulus founded his city was precisely the thirtieth of the month, and that on that day there was a conjunction of the sun and moon, with an eclipse, which they think was the one seen by Antimachus, the epic poet of Teos, in the third year of the sixth Olympiad."

What I see when I read this quotation from Plutarch is the word "thirtieth" followed immediately by the word "third", giving us the spook magic number of 33.

When I see this number, I immediately begin to suspect that this text was written or altered to include this wink at some point in the fairly recent past. There are plenty of threads here documenting how all of our ancient classical texts were only found (= written or rewritten) in the Renaissance. Even that may be a cover story.

Christ died at 33 because Christ as we know him was a made-up character. There was also an eclipse on the day he was crucified, right? Why does all this important stuff happen on eclipse days? I suspect it is because the eclipse is simply a metaphor for deception.

Doing a quick search for famous historical eclipses, I see this: The eclipse in history

On 29 May 1453, a rising Full Moon was eclipsed over Constantinople, then under siege by the Turk army. It is reported that this created such a dip in morale that in a few days Constantinople was defeated, leading to the end of the Roman Empire of Orient after 1130 years.

So there was also an eclipse on the day the Eastern Roman Empire fell, 1130 years (11×3=33) after its founding.

Started with an eclipse, ended with an eclipse...hmmm.

Constantine also converted Rome to Christianity after a kind of eclipse.

I don't believe stuff like this anymore.

You might protest that there are too many numerical and etymological isomorphies and internal correspondences in the historical record (such as those that you have identified here) for all of this to have been faked. That may be true. But I suspect that even a completely random data set will yield seductive patterns to someone who looks hard enough.

In Sandokhan's archives, which would take a literal lifetime to read through, he links to an astronomical paper proving that it is impossible to calculate celestial alignments (and a fortiori, eclipses) with any accuracy further back than 300 years maximum. Is it a real proof? I am not astronomer enough to know for sure, but it rings true to me. The solar system cannot be used as a clock.

Charles Fort has an entire chapter in the must-read "Book of the Damned" dedicated to eclipses that happen when they shouldn't and don't happen when they should.

What I am suggesting is this. Eclipse dates may be a bottomless hole. Etymology may be a bottomless hole. The chronology of antiquity may be a bottomless hole. All it takes is a few ancient spooks sticking their code numbers into forged or altered documents for the entire enterprise to be doomed to failure.

I am not unaware of the irony here, namely that I may simply have substituted 9ne overly simplistic pattern system (decontextualized 33's, 18's, and 666's everywhere) for another more subtle or sophisticated one which I lack the acumen to recognize.

I am sorry not to engage more directly with your research, but my learned skepticism kicks in hard when I see dates like "April 1, 685 BC". I do not believe it is possible to speak about such far-off dates with any precision.

You might be interested in the work of @Jef Demolder , who digs deeply into the origins of our calendar system at his website. For example here: Abyss of Time

I apologize if you find my contribution off-topic and will gladly delete it if you or the mods feel it does not respect the original post.

 

[LeePappas]

Interesting theory.
How did you establish this chap was real as in a flesh and blood character who lived and died and not some fictitious character in an invented historical narrative?

This is off topic, but I will answer it anyway. Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions that Romulus was the first king of Rome, and Plutarch expressed the same sentiment. Furthermore, Dionysius mentions that there were 7 kings of Rome. They believed there were kings of Rome. Dionysius read historical documents in Latin even though his native tongue was Greek, to leave a monument of his mind behind. He said:

"For I am convinced that all who propose to leave such monuments of their minds to posterity as time shall p5 not involve in one common ruin with their bodies, and particularly those who write histories, in which we have the right to assume that Truth, the source of both prudence and wisdom, is enshrined, ought, first of all, to make choice of noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers, and then, with great care and pains, to provide themselves with the proper equipment for the treatment of their subject"

This shows his character in a positive light. So he wasn't delusional by believing there were kings of Rome. In fact, it was common knowledge at the time he was writing that there were kings of Rome. It is absurd to suspect that an entire nation was deluded into believing there were kings of Rome because there weren't any. Furthermore, he had access to reign lengths of the seven kings, and his sources stated they ruled for 244 years He stated he was writing in 745 AUC, and 745-244=501. So the question becomes, were the Romans all deluded by believing there were kings when there weren't for 500 years? In fact, the Roman republic began after the seventh Roman King made an exit in 488 BC. An entire nation of people all believers of the same false statement for 480 years is not only unlikely, it's downright impossible. That's my answer to your off topic question. I suggest you read Dionysius' Roman Antiquities until the information he provides convinces you there were Roman kings. And of course if there were Roman kings, then there was a first Roman King. I'm not saying it was Romulus, just that it was someone... a much weaker assertion.

 

[ViniB]

This could be a little off topic but i think it's quite relevant. Whenever someone mentions "roman history" it's always critical to look for primary sources, and as usual, a problem present itself. It follows the usual pattern of the text being "discovered" somewhere during the 1500s, then a copy is made and the supposed originals disapear.

And dionysius is no different
It's hard, at lest for me, to just believe something that happened in 500BC from a dude that lived more than 1000 years later!

 

[Jd755]

This is off topic, but I will answer it anyway. Dionysius of Halicarnassus mentions that Romulus was the first king of Rome, and Plutarch expressed the same sentiment. Furthermore, Dionysius mentions that there were 7 kings of Rome. They believed there were kings of Rome. Dionysius read historical documents in Latin even though his native tongue was Greek, to leave a monument of his mind behind. He said:

"For I am convinced that all who propose to leave such monuments of their minds to posterity as time shall p5 not involve in one common ruin with their bodies, and particularly those who write histories, in which we have the right to assume that Truth, the source of both prudence and wisdom, is enshrined, ought, first of all, to make choice of noble and lofty subjects and such as will be of great utility to their readers, and then, with great care and pains, to provide themselves with the proper equipment for the treatment of their subject"

This shows his character in a positive light. So he wasn't delusional by believing there were kings of Rome. In fact, it was common knowledge at the time he was writing that there were kings of Rome. It is absurd to suspect that an entire nation was deluded into believing there were kings of Rome because there weren't any. Furthermore, he had access to reign lengths of the seven kings, and his sources stated they ruled for 244 years He stated he was writing in 745 AUC, and 745-244=501. So the question becomes, were the Romans all deluded by believing there were kings when there weren't for 500 years? In fact, the Roman republic began after the seventh Roman King made an exit in 488 BC. An entire nation of people all believers of the same false statement for 480 years is not only unlikely, it's downright impossible. That's my answer to your off topic question. I suggest you read Dionysius' Roman Antiquities until the information he provides convinces you there were Roman kings. And of course if there were Roman kings, then there was a first Roman King. I'm not saying it was Romulus, just that it was someone... a much weaker assertion.

On the contrary. Its the very basis of your entire opening post.
Thank you for giving your response. Its appreciated.

 

[LeePappas]

This could be a little off topic but i think it's quite relevant. Whenever someone mentions "roman history" it's always critical to look for primary sources, and as usual, a problem present itself. It follows the usual pattern of the text being "discovered" somewhere during the 1500s, then a copy is made and the supposed originals disapear.

And dionysius is no different
It's hard, at lest for me, to just believe something that happened in 500BC from a dude that lived more than 1000 years later!

View attachment 30527​

A few things.

• The information provided in Dionysius' Roman Antiquities is not only innocuous, it is contiguous. By contiguous, I mean that a lucid continuous story is told by the author. If the narrative was a pure fabrication, then it wouldn't be both lucid and continuous, it would be incoherent nonsense, therefore it would show signs of being a fabrication, and it doesn't. If you actually read it, then you will see it's authentic, for similar reasons that I have concluded that. Whoever wrote it was familiar with a great deal of history ancient in their time. They state correctly that the first Punic war happened in Olympiad 184, and this it did just barely. It began in March, April, or May of 265 BC based on the consuls in the first year of the war, combined with the fact that Olympiad 185, year 1 began in June of 265 BC. How could a fabrication be that precise? Along these lines, he states that the Trojan war ended 17 days before the summer solstice, in the second to the last month of the year of the Athenians, Thargelion 22, 8 days before the end of the month. When you do the calendrical analysis, you discover he was referring to June of 714 BC precisely. Again I ask you, "how could a fabrication be that precise, on such fine detail?". In 44 BC Caesar had just got the vernal equinox to fall on April 1st, a fact that was common knowledge. If you frame switch to Dionysius' point of view, and perform the calculation as he must have, you realize he used a vernal equinox on April 1st in his time of writing, 7 BC, and a tropical year of 365.25 days. If you use the actual value of 365.2422 days, your calculation is off from his date Thargelion 22 by 5 days. There's no way a forger could have thought of that and taken it into account. On the basis of that alone you can conclude the original was written while the vernal equinox still fell on April 1st.
• You are right, it is relevant, but not critical. I only used the information in 'Roman Antiquities' to find an approximate year of the eclipse. Using his information I got 688 BC, and then by trial and error, used astronomy software to find the Julian day number of the eclipse, 1470868.5 =January 8, 686 BC [Gregorian proleptic], once you find the eclipse date your method of finding it irrelevant. His information was only off by 2 years. Ask yourself, "how could a forgery date that eclipse to within 2 years?"
• Dionysius of Halicarnassus is different, for he lived in Turkey, and modern Turks have been trying to advance his lie/error that the Trojan war ended 35 lunar years before the 685 BC eclipse in 714 BC, when in fact it ended in 713 BC in the month of Hekatomaion. Since Dionysius lived in Turkey, and Friedrich Sylburg was German, how would he have known that the Turks wanted others to believe the Trojan war ended in 714 BC. On the basis of that fact, Roman antiquities was written by a Turk, not a German living 1500+ years later.
• You shouldn't believe anything, that's what reason is there for. To help you figure out what is true when faced with bad information.
• One last point. Roman Antiquities has been used by many later individuals to learn about Roman history. They obviously felt he was a reliable source, for some of the same reasons I have concluded that. Why did they rely upon him, but you can't. If you ignore his writing, then your mind will be left out in the cold, dark realm of ignorance, that always afflicts the new generation. Why would you want that?

 

[LeePappas]

In my first post on the forum entitled "Rome was founded on Aprilius 1, 685 BC on the day of a solar eclipse," I stated day 1 of the Octaeteris was 1570570.5, if you assume the Romans got the vernal equinox to fall on April 1st in 412 BC.

Rome was founded on Aprilius 1, 685 BC on the day of a solar eclipse.

But that assumption is false, as I will show in this post, by using information provided to posterity by the 2nd century BC Roman poet Quintus Ennius. He stated that there was an eclipse on Unius 5th, and Cicero stated the year was 350 AUC.

In book one of Cicero's De Re Publica, he writes:

"Quod cum disputando rationibusque docuisset, populum liberavit metu; erat enim tum haec nova et ignota ratio, solem lunae oppositu solere deficere, quod Thaletem Milesium primum vidisse dicunt. Id autem postea ne nostrum quidem Ennium fugit; qui ut scribit, anno trecentesimo quinquagesimo fere post Romam conditam
Nonis Iunis soli luna obstitit et nox."

Nonis=nones
Iunis=Unius=June
Solid=sun
Luna=moon
Obstitit=obscured
Et=and
Nox=night

Translation: When he had discussed the subject and given the explanation of the phenomenon, the people were freed of their fears. For at that time it was a strange and unfamiliar idea that the sun was regularly eclipsed by the interposition of the moon - a fact which Thales of Miletus is said to have been the first to observe. But later even our own Ennius was not ignorant of it, for he wrote that, in about the three hundred and fiftieth year ** after Rome was founded :
In the month of June - the day was then the fifth -
The moon and night obscured the shining sun.

According to Beck, the author in the link below, the nones in June was on the 5th.

Syntax of the Latin Language

Another clue is in the pen name of Ennius. According to many ancient sources his first name was Quintus, and Quintus is Latin for 'fifth'. Thus it makes sense that he lived through the solar eclipse he spoke of, because Ennius was the original name of the month Unius, as ena[Greek]=one and the first king of Rome spoke Greek, and he changed the month names following the eclipse. So what I'm saying is when whoever changed the first month name, he named it Ennius. Thus Quintus Ennius = the fifth of June.

At this point I decided to look for a solar eclipse on Unius 5, using home planet astronomy software, during the life time of Ennius. By finding it I will have a Julian day number of a specific Octaeteris calendar date. Then I can work backwards from that Julian day number to find day one of the Octaeteris.

In the following link you will see that Marcus Cornelius Cethegus was alive during the life of Ennius. He was consul in 204 BC.

Ennius: translation of fragments (2)

In the following link it says that Caecilius Ennius lived to be at least 67 years old.

Search Results for Sixty | loeb | Loeb Classical Library

Quintus Ennius, at Wikipedia states:

"The public career of Ennius first really emerges in middle life, when he was serving in the army with the rank of centurion during the Second Punic War. While in Sardinia in the year 204 BC, he is said to have attracted the attention of Cato the Elder and was taken by him to Rome. There he taught Greek and adapted Greek plays for a livelihood, and by his poetical compositions gained the friendship of some of the greatest men in Rome whose achievements he praised. Amongst these were Scipio Africanus and Fulvius Nobilior, whom he accompanied on his Aetolian campaign (189). Afterwards he made the capture of Ambracia, at which he was present, the subject of a play and of an episode in the Annales. It was through the influence of Nobilior's son Quintus that Ennius subsequently obtained Roman citizenship. But he himself lived plainly and simply in the literary quarter on the Aventine Hill with the poet Caecilius Statius, a fellow adapter of Greek plays.

At about the age of 70 Ennius died, immediately after producing his tragedy Thyestes. In the last book of his epic poem, in which he seems to have given various details of his personal history, he mentioned that he was in his 67th year at the date of its composition."

These two sources imply Ennius lived to be at least 67. Now Ennius was Homosexual so it is unlikely he served in the army, his partner's first name was Caecilius which appears in the link. Scipio Africanus was consul in 205 BC, and Cethegus was consul in 204 BC.

If Ennius was 67 in 204 BC, then he was born in 271 BC.
Thus the eclipse happened after 271 BC.

For Ennius to clearly remember it, he was at least 10 years old. Thus the eclipse happened sometime after 261 BC. That narrows the search range down a bit.

The capture of Ambracia took place in 189 BC, according to the source, 4 years to write it places its publication in 185 BC, so if he was 67 then, he was born in 252 BC. Age ten at the eclipse places it after 242 BC.

Under the assumption that day one of the Octaeteris was 1570570.5, an easy number to remember, the 412 BC vernal equinox happened at midnight between March 30 and April 1st. Using home planet astronomy software, looking for an eclipse visible from Rome around Unius 5, beginning in 261 BC, I located the eclipse. It happened on

1633877.753 = Unius 4th, 239 BC 6:56 A.M. Rome time, if Ianuarius 1, 412 BC = 1570570.

Assume 1570569.5=Ianuarius 1, 412 BC.

1570569.5 + 21*2920+1460=1633349.5,=Ianuarius 1, 240 BC [376 day year]

1633349.5+376=1633725.5=Ianuarius 1, 239 BC

1633725.5+30+29+30+29+30+4=1633877.5=Unius 5th, 239 BC, the Julian day number of the eclipse.

Therefore with 100% certainty the first day of the Octaeteris was: 1570569.5, which was to be demonstrated. Q.E.D.

Consequently, the Romans got the 412 BC vernal equinox to fall at midnight between April 1st and April 2nd.

What was the civil calendar date of Julian day number 1570569.5?

In my first post at the forum I proved Rome was founded on Aprilius 1, 685 BC=1470868.5. The start of that year was 2 months earlier on Unius 1, 685 BC [ancient Roman proleptic]=1470809.5

All we have to do to find the calendar date of Julian day number 1570569.5 is work forward from Unius 1, 685 BC=1470809.5.
1570569.5-1470809.5=99701 days
99701 days/295.306 days per lunar year=337.6 lunar years.
337*295.306=99518 days
1470809.5+99518=1570327.5=Unius 1, 413 BC
1570327.5+29+30+29+30+29+30+29+29=
1570562.5 = Octobrilius 29, 413 BC
Day one of the Octaeteris was 7 days later, in the month of Novembrilius. So without creating a problem we may assume the Romans let Octobrilius 413 BC run 6 days long. Therefore,
Octobrilius 35, 413 BC=1570568.5
Novembrilius 1, 413 BC=1570569.5

Therefore day one of the Octaeteris was on the civil calendar date of Novembrilius 1, 413 BC, which was to be shown. Q.E.D.

Consequently, Decembrilius 29, 413 BC=1570627.5

Since the 412 BC vernal equinox was shown to be on 1570659.55= Aprilius 2, 412 BC, therefore, 1570658.5 = Aprilius 1, 412 BC.
Martius was 30 days, so 1570628.5 = Martius 1, 412 BC.

As you can now see, following December 29th, 413 BC was Martius 1st, 412 BC. So 412 BC is the year the Romans moved Unius to after Maius, where we find it today.

 

[LeePappas]

In this post I aim to show that day one of the Julian calendar was 1704977.5. In my first post at this forum I showed that day one of the ancient Roman calendar was Aprilius 1, 685 BC=1470868.5. In my second post at the forum I showed that day one of the Octaeteris was Novembrilius 1, 413 BC=1570569.5.

All you have to do to reach the conclusion that day one of the Julian calendar was 1704977.5 is to figure out that the Romans placed the 44 BC vernal equinox on Aprilius 1st.

44 BC vernal equinox

2298952.5-(1582+44)*365.2422=1705068.683

Assume Aprilius 1, 44 BC=1705068.5.
4 AD was a leap year.
0 BC was a leap year.
4 BC was a leap year.
44 BC was a leap year.

I showed that there was a zero BC in this link:

Rome was founded on Aprilius 1, 685 BC on the day of a solar eclipse.

Therefore

1705068.5-31-29-31=1704977.5=Ianuarius 1, 44 BC.

45 BC was the Ultimus Anno Confusionis, and Julius Caesar added 88 days to the year to place the vernal equinox on Aprilius 1 in 44 BC, the year of his assassination. 22 days were intercalated following February, and 66 days were intercalated between November and December. To determine that he added 88 days you need to know when day one of the Octaetarian calendar was.

I proved that day one of the Octaeteris was in 412 BC on Julian day number 1570569.5, in my second post at this forum, here's the link:

The Julian day number of day one of the Octaeteris was 1570569.5.


I will show you how to arrive at the figure 88 days.

From 412 BC to 46 BC there were 366 years at 365 days per year.

1570569.5+366*365=1704159.5=Ianuarius 1, 46 BC.

Years that are evenly divisible by two were intercalary years so the 22-day intercalary month Mercedinus was added that year. Therefore:

1704159.5+354+22=1704535.5=Ianuarius 1, 45 BC

45 BC was a 354-day year, therefore in the absence of adding the 88 days the following would have been true:

1704535+354=1704889.5=Ianuarius 1, 45 BC [Octaeterian]

To determine how many days Caesar added subtract 1704889.5 from 1704977.5.

1704977.5-1604889.5=88 days

Now an assumption means there's uncertainty present, and I assumed Aprilius 1, 44 BC = 1704977.5. We have to close the scope of the assumption to eliminate the uncertainty. The way I will do that is to show that Augustus Caesar canceled leap day in 16 BC, and the Intergravissimas 1582 Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII never added 10 days to the Julian calendar in 1582. It will then turn out that the Julian day number of January 1st 1579 was 2297777.5, the number that defines the entire Julian day number system.

Then it's a simple matter to work backwards to find the Julian day number of day one of the Julian calendar, and it will be 1704977.5. Since there's no other scenario that gives the correct Julian day number of October 15th 1582, you can avoid making any assumptions and work backwards from the Julian day number of day one of the Gregorian calendar to find day one of the Julian calendar, accounting for Augustus' leap day cancelation of course.

1570659.553=412 BC vernal equinox
1704703.441=45 BC vernal equinox
1705068.683=44 BC vernal equinox
1714930.222=17 BC vernal equinox
1715295.464=16 BC vernal equinox

These Julian day numbers are UTC times, to convert any of them to Rome time you have to add .034722222 days because the longitude of Rome is 12.496366° East of the Greenwich meridian. The earth completes one revolution in 24 hours, with 360° per revolution, so there are .06666666 hours per degree.

12.496366° * 066666 hrs per degree=.83309 hrs=49.98 min

50 min/(60 min per hr * 24 hrs per day)=.034722222 days

So for example the 17 BC vernal equinox occurred in Rome at a time of 1714930.222+.03472=1714930.257.

To find out what time of day Rome time that was is simple.
Look at the decimal of the Julian day number, .257 days.

.257 days*24 hrs per day=6.168 hrs.

The decimal .5 in a Julian day number corresponds to midnight, so .25 in a Julian day number corresponds to 6 hours before midnight, or 6:00 p.m. In this example it's .168 hrs after 6:00 p.m.

.168 hrs * 60 min per hr =10.08 minutes.

Thus in 17 BC the Romans knew the vernal equinox happened at 6:00 p.m. to within an error of under 15 minutes, because the sun set exactly West that day, at 6:10 P.M. Rome time.

Caesar's astronomers calculations
Caesar's astronomers knew that

412 BC vernal equinox
1570659.5=midnight between Aprilius 1 and Aprilius 2, 412 BC [Octaeterian]

And figured out that:
45 BC vernal equinox
1704703.5 = midnight between Quinctilius 2, and Quinctilius 3, 45 BC [Octaeterian]

Thus at that time in history they knew the vernal equinox slipped 89 days through the Octaeteris.
Quinctilius became July, and there are 89 days from April 1st to July 2nd in the Octaeteris.

How did they know the number of days between those two calendar dates? That's a pertinent mathematical question.

367 years after 412 BC corresponds to 45 BC.

They wanted to determine the number of days between those two vernal equinoxes. Thus they needed to determine

367*365+89=(365+2)365+89

Because of Euclid they knew the distributive law:

a(b+c)=ab+ac

367*365=(365+2)365= 365^2 + 2*365

Thus they needed to square 365.

Because of Euclid they knew:

(a+b)^2=a^2 + 2ab + b^2

By successive applications of the theorems of Euclid, they were able to determine, using Roman numerals of course, that

365^2=360^2 + 2*360*5 + 5^2=133955

so that the number of days between midnight April 2, 412 BC and midnight Quinctilius 3, 45 BC was 134044 days.

Therefore, they were able to predict the 44 BC vernal equinox would occur 134044+365=134409 days after the 412 BC vernal equinox. At that point they had enough information to approximate the value of the tropical year. They couldn't divide at that time in history, but they were able to compute the following

368(365+.25)=134412 days, which was easy since 368 is evenly divisible by 4.

134409 is close to 134412.

Therefore the Roman astronomers knew in 45 BC, that one tropical year was slightly less than 365.25 days. Augustus used this fact to justify canceling leap day in 16 BC. They also knew there would be about 3 days error every 368 years.

WHY DID AUGUSTUS CAESAR CANCEL LEAP DAY IN 16 BC?

In 17 BC the sun set exactly West on the day of the vernal equinox at exactly 6:00 p.m. Rome time, source Home Planet astronomy software. That year they had the vernal equinox trapped to under 15 minutes of error. Augustus wanted the vernal equinox to fall on April 1st every leap year.

At that time in history the Romans already knew the tropical year was slightly less than 365.25 days, that was figured out by Julius Caesar's astronomers. That meant if Augustus did nothing the 16 BC vernal equinox would fall on March 31st. Therefore Augustus canceled leap day in 16 BC so that the vernal equinox fell on April 1st that year, and for the next 128 years.

Therefore, January 1, 44 BC=1704977.5, if modern Julian day numbers agree with this scenario, and they do.

To see that they do, we need to determine the Julian day number of October 15th 1582 the first day of the Gregorian calendar.

According to Fourmilab Calendar converter it was 2299160.5.

1704977.5+(1580+44)/4 * 1461 =2298143.5=January 1, 1580

2298143.+366+365=2298874.5=January 1, 1582

If the Intergravissimas Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII never added 10 calendar days to 1582, then the day after October 5th 1582 was October 6th, rather than October 15th. If that was the case then October 15th 1582 will be Julian day number 2299160.5 under that condition.

2298874+31+28+31+30+31+30+31+31+30+14=2299161.5

Fourmilab Calendar converter has 2299160.5 for that day.

A one-day discrepancy caused by ignoring the fact that Augustus canceled leap day in 16 BC. Therefore with 100% certainty Augustus canceled leap day in 16 BC to keep the vernal equinox on April 1st because in 17 BC the vernal equinox fell at exactly 6:10 p.m. Rome time.

Don't miss the greater conclusion that the Intergravissimas never added 10 calendar days to 1582. That's a lie, perpetrated by someone in the Catholic Church.

I will take day one of the Augustinian calendar, as the day of the 16 BC vernal equinox.

Day one of the Augustinian calendar=1715294.5= Aprilius 1, 16 BC [Augustinian]= Martius 31, 16 BC [Julian].

We are now in a position to show that January 1, 1579 = 2297777.5.

Had we known this at the outset we would have never had to use Fourmilab Calendar Converter.

2299160.5=October 15th 1582

2299160.5 - 287 =2298873.5=January 1st 1582

2298873.5-365-366-365=2297777.5=January 1st 1579

I claim that Julian day number was assigned to that year and day in the imperial age. I can argue successfully that the Roman historian Tacitus was aware of it.

All those sevens can't be coincidence.

The significance of the number 7 is associated with the fact that there were exactly seven Roman kings. Of 228, 229, and 230 only 229 leads to the first three digits of the Julian day number of January 1st 2000 being 245.

2451544.5 = January 1, 2000

The Roman kings ruled for 245 lunar years. A fact known to ancient Romans.

My point is that the number 2297777.5 was carefully chosen to correspond to January 1st 1579.

It is well known that the Intergravissimas approximated the tropical year at 365.2425 days. How did they arrive at that value?

1582 vernal equinox=2298952.5
16 BC vernal equinox=1715294.5

(2298952.5 - 1715294.5)/(1582+16)=365.2428 days.

Or 365 days, 5 hours, 49 minutes, 38 seconds

Compare that to the actual value of 365.2422 days.

Or 365 days, 5 hours 48 minutes, 46 seconds.

Thus the error in the value of the tropical year was about a minute per 1600 years.

If you now run the argument in reverse, you arrive at the conclusion that

Day one of the Julian calendar=1704977.5, which was to be demonstrated. Q.E.D.

 

[Otherlane]

In this post I aim to show that Rome was founded on April 1st 685 BC. The first king of Rome changed the month names of the calendar previously in use, to commemorate the event. Simply by performing an in depth etymology of the word 'April' a fantastic amount of history can be uncovered.

To begin with, I used my limited knowledge of Greek to wonder why Roman month names are built from Greek words. The etymology of the last month reveals it is derived from the Greek word for ten.

deka [Greek] = decem [Latin] = ten

The other equations are:

Ena[Greek]= Unum [Latin]=one
Hexi [Greek]=Sextem [Latin]=six
Epta[Greek]=Septem[Latin]=seven
Octo[Greek]=Octem [Latin]=eight
Enneia [Greek]=Novem[Latin]=nine

March, April, and May, aren't derivatives of numbers, so I began to wonder about their etymologies. March and May proved elusive initially, but I found success with April.

I used the Scott-Liddell Greek English dictionary to look up all words starting with 'apr', and there was only one: aperro. It's last letter is actually omega not omicron, so if you look it up in Perseus Digital Library you have to enter aperrw. Here's what you will find:

Aperro = gone

Then I researched the Roman word for the month of April, and discovered it was Aprilis.

Then I asked myself what was gone+Ilis? It meant nothing to me, but I knew enough Greek to solve the problem.

Helios[Greek]=ilius[Latin]=sun.

Thus the etymology of April is

Aperrilius=Aprilius=Aprilis=April=gone+sun

It was then I suspected there was an ancient eclipse and the people who lived through it changed the month names of the previous calendar to commemorate the eclipse event. Subsequently I reconstructed that new calendar as:

Unius
Martius
Aprilius
Maius
Quinctilius
Sextilius
Septembrilius
Octobrilius
Novembrilius
Decembrilius

The words Quinctilius, sextilius, septembrilius, Octobrilius, and Decembrilius all can be found in extant Latin documents.

Then I found the following passage in Plutarch's the life of Romulus:

"At the present time, indeed, there is no agreement between the Roman and Greek months, but they say that the day on which Romulus founded his city was precisely the thirtieth of the month, and that on that day there was a conjunction of the sun and moon, with an eclipse, which they think was the one seen by Antimachus, the epic poet of Teos, in the third year of the sixth Olympiad."

I then learned about eclipses and found out they can only occur on a new moon, when the sun, moon, and earth are in a straight line.

Thus I was off and running. Rome was founded on the day of a solar eclipse, and the Romans who apparently spoke Greek at that time, renamed the month the eclipse happened in Aprilius to commemorate the event. The new moon was always at the start of the month, so that eclipse happened April 1st. The only thing left was to find the year, and I knew the only way to do that is to use astronomy software.

You may wonder why I decided the founders of Rome spoke Greek, and not proto-Latin. Again, we can go to the word 'aperro'. The fact that the word has double R, indicates the word breaks there, that is aperro=aper+ro.

Now in Greek when you want to convert a word to it's opposite, you prefix it with the letter 'a'. For example:
Abaris(ahvareece)= light, not heavy
Barus(vareece)=heavy
Thus, aperro is actually composed of three Greek words: aperro=a+per+ro.
In my Divry Greek English dictionary, it has
Pera=over, across, through

Therefore aperro=not+through+ro.

I looked up 'per' in Perseus Digital Library and it meant 'at' in ancient Greek. Thus I concluded:
Aperro= not+at+Ro.

And I guessed that the Romans somehow knew, prior to renaming the month Aperrilius, that the eclipse wasn't visible at the island of Rhodes.

Then I performed an etymology on Rhodes, and came up with: Ro+edo.
Ro shows up in Romani, and in modern Greek edo=here.
Mani [Latin]=hands
So, Romani=Romans=row+hands, and Rhodes= row+here.

Since it is Greek and not Latin in which prefixing a word with 'a' means the opposite, I decided they spoke Greek rather than some form of ancient Latin.

Then, on a hunch, I performed an etymology on
'Hiroshima'.
Hi=day
Shima = island
So, Hiroshima=day+Ro+island.

So there may be a connection.

As to how determined the eclipse happened in 685 BC, that's really complicated. For starters I went looking for an ancient Historian I could trust. I decided I would need to know when he wrote, and I found Dionysius of Halicarnassus author of 'Roman Antiquities'. I wanted information on Rome obviously, and he fit the bill. I started from the beginning, and he said this:

"For from the very beginning, immediately after her founding, she began to draw to herself the neighbouring nations, which were both numerous and warlike, and continually advanced, subjugating every rival. And it is now seven hundred and forty-five years from her foundation down to the consulship of Claudius Nero, consul for the second time, and of Calpurnius Piso, who were chosen in the one hundred and ninety-third Olympiad.9 5 From the time that she mastered the whole of Italy she was emboldened to aspire to p13 govern all mankind, and after driving from off the sea the Carthaginians, whose maritime strength was superior to that of all others, and subduing Macedonia, which until then was reputed to be the most powerful nation on land, she no longer had as rival any nation either barbarian or Greek..."

Then I went to the consul list, having just discovered there was such a thing, and I found this:

7 BCTib. Claudius Nero II Cn. Calpurnius Piso

Many sources claimed Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, so I felt I could trust Nero and Piso were consuls in 7 BC, I felt the list was right about that 7 BC date.

Now I was getting somewhere.

Then I thought about the calendar. I knew there was a point in time that the Romans changed from a ten month to a twelve month calendar. I needed to know when that change happened to find the year of the eclipse.

After a bit of searching I came across Censorinus's De Die Natali Liber. In it I found this:

"adeo aberratum est, ut C. Caesar pontifex maximus suo III et M. Aemilii Lepidi consulatu, quo retro delictum corrigeret, duos menses intercalarios dierum LXVII in mensem Novembrem et Decembrem interponeret, cum iam mense Februario dies III et XX intercalasset, faceretque eum annum dierum CCCCXLV, simul providens in futurum, ne iterum erraretur: nam intercalario mense sublato annum civilem ad solis cursum formavit."

Translation: so much so aberrated it is, that C. Caesar the Pontifex Maximus his 3rd and M. Ameilii Lepidus consuls, where back offense would correct, two intercalary months of days 67 in the months of November and December put in between, with already the month February days 3 and 20 intercalated, making his year of days 445, simultaneously providing in the future, no more mistakes, for intercalary month lifted up civil year to sun's course formed.

Then I went to the consul list and found 46 BC was the year of Caesar 3rd and Lepidus consuls. Then I read that that year was referred to as the Ultimus Anno Confusionis, or Last Year of Confusion. At this point I felt like I had enough information to figure out when the calendar change occurred.

445-67-23=355 days

If Ceasar didn't 'intercalate' 90 days, then that year would have had 355 days. How can a year have 355 days I thought. Then I reasoned that calendar was a compromise between a lunar and solar calendar, and I formulated this:

Ianuarius 30
Februarius 29
Martius 30
Aprilius 29
Maius 30
Unius 29
Quinctilius 30
Sextilius 29
Septembrilius 30
Octobrilius 29
Novembrilius 30
Decembrilius 29

The days add up to 354, so I knew I had the right idea with that calendar.

Then i came across something called the Octaeteris. It's a period of almost eight tropical years. The source mentioned the Octaeteris had a 22 or 23 day intercalary month. It didn't take me long to figure out how it worked.

Octaeteris

Year 1: 376 days
Year 2: 354 days
Year 3: 376 days
Year 4: 354 days
Year 5: 376 days
Year 6: 354 days
Year 7: 376 days
Year 8: 354 days

376*4+354*4=2920, and 2920/8= 365

Thus the Octaeteris had an average year of 365 days, with a 22 day intercalary month called Mercedinus intercalated every other year.

As of 46 BC the tropical year was thought to be about 365.25 days. According to Censorinus Julius Caesar added 90 days to the calendar in 46 BC. It made sense to me that he was trying to get the vernal equinox back to where it was when the Octaeteris was implemented. A better value was obtained by 1582, the year the intergravissimas Papal Bull of Pope Gregory XIII went into effect. It approximated the tropical year at 365.2425 days.

Slip rate=.2425 days per year
90 days/.2425 days per year=371 years

371+46=417

So the Octaeteris went into effect around 417 BC.

But could I get a better approximation?

I began to not trust Censorinus, because he claimed the intercalary month was 23 days, when now I knew it was 22. After some thought it occurred to me that Caesar would have waited until the end of an Octaeterian cycle to add the 90 days. With that one idea, I could improve on my date of 417 BC. Here's how I did it.

(417-46)/8=46.375

So that's not a whole number of Octaeterian cycles, the information in Censorinus is badly flawed.

Then I began to suspect the 90 days were added in 45 BC not 46 BC, because Caesar was assassinated in 44 BC, and I figured the events were related. So I did this:

(412 - 44)=368, 368/8=46
(420-44)=372, 372/8=47

Thus, the Octaeteris was implemented in 412 or 420 BC.

If 412 BC, then the vernal equinox slipped 368*.2425=89 days.

If 420 BC, then the vernal equinox slipped 372*.2425=90 days.

So what was this magical day the Romans were trying to get the vernal equinox on? Aprilius 1st the founding date of Rome of course. It's near to March 21st where it is today, so that's a good guess.

Then I used a spreadsheet with all the Roman consuls, from 44 BC backwards to the first consuls at Rome, Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, and Lucius Junius Brutus. Eventually I ruled out 420 BC. Thus I could get the Julian day number of the day of implementation of the Octaeteris to within a few days, if I knew the precise time of year of one vernal equinox, and the precise value of one tropical year.

Modern sources place the value of one tropical year at 365.2422 days.

At this point I downloaded Home Planet astronomy software.

It has the 1582 vernal equinox on midnight March 21st, Julian day number 2298952.5 [exact value].

412 BC vernal equinox
2298952.5 - (1582+412)*365.2422=1570659.55
Aprilius 1, 412 BC=1570659.5

Therefore January 1st, 412 BC =
1570569.5 -30-29-30=1570570.5
Day 1 of the Octaeteris= 1570570.5

Now to find the year of the eclipse, we can make use of the following information in Dionysius of Halicarnassus' Roman Antiquities:

"74 1 As to the last settlement or founding of the city, or whatever we ought to call it, Timaeus of Sicily,196 following what principle I do not know, places it at the same time as the founding of Carthage, that is, in the thirty-eighth year before the first Olympiad;197 Lucius Cincius, a member of the senate, places it about the fourth year of the twelfth Olympiad,198 and Quintus Fabius in the first year of the eighth Olympiad.199 2 Porcius Cato does not give the time according to Greek reckoning, but being as careful as any writer in gathering the date of ancient history, he places its founding four hundred and thirty-two years after the Trojan war; and this p247 time, being compared with the Chronicles of Eratosthenes,200 corresponds to the first year of the seventh Olympiad.201 That the canons of Eratosthenes are sound I have shown in another treatise,202 where I have also shown how the Roman chronology is to be synchronized with that of the Greeks. 3 For I did not think it sufficient, like Polybius of Megalopolis,203 to say merely that I believe Rome was built in the second year of the seventh Olympiad,204 nor to let my belief rest without further examination upon the single tablet preserved by the high priests, the only one of its kind, but I determined to set forth the reasons that had appealed to me, so that all might examine them who so desired. 4 In that treatise, therefore, the detailed exposition is given; but in the course of the present work also the most essential of the conclusions there reached will be mentioned. The matter stands thus: It is generally agreed that the invasion of the Gauls,205 during which the city of Rome was taken, happened during the archonship of Pyrgion at Athens, in the first year of the ninety-eighth Olympiad.206 Now if the time before the taking of the city is reckoned back to Lucius Junius Brutus and Lucius Tarquinius Collatinus, the first consuls at Rome after the overthrow of the kings, it comprehends one hundred p249 and twenty years. 5 This is proved in many other ways, but particularly by the records of the censors, which receives in succession from the father and takes great care to transmit to posterity, like family rites; and there are many illustrious men of censorian families who preserve these records. In them I find that in the second year before the taking of the city there was a census of the Roman people, to which, as to the rest of them, there is affixed the date, as follows: "In the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus, in the one hundred and nineteenth year after the expulsion of the kings." 6 So that the Gallic invasion, which we find to have occurred in the second year after the census, happened when the hundred and twenty years were completed. If, now, this interval of time is found to consist of thirty Olympiads, it must be allowed that the first consuls to be chosen entered upon their magistracy in the first year of the sixty-eighth Olympiad, the same year that Isagoras was archon at Athens."

In the Roman Consul list, Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus were consuls in the 117th year after the expulsion of the kings, so Dionysus lied there by two years. You discover this by actually counting the consuls, which I didn't do initially.

He continues:

"75 1 And, again, if from the expulsion of the kings the time is reckoned back to Romulus, the first ruler of the city, it amounts to two hundred and forty-four years. This is known from the order in which the kings succeeded one another and the number of years each of them ruled. For Romulus, the founder p251 of Rome, reigned thirty-seven years, it is said, and after his death the city was a year without a king. 2 Then Numa Pompilius, who was chosen by the people, reigned forty-three years; after Numa, Tullus Hostilius thirty-two; and his successor, Ancus Marcius, twenty-four; after Marcius, Lucius Tarquinius, called Priscus, thirty-eight; Servius Tullius, who succeeded him, forty-four. And the slayer of Servius, Lucius Tarquinius, the tyrannical prince who, from his contempt of justice, was called Superbus, extended his reign to the twenty-fifth year. 3 As the reigns, therefore, of the kings amount to two hundred and forty-four years or sixty-one Olympiads, it follows necessarily that Romulus, the first ruler of the city, began his reign in the first year of the seventh Olympiad, when Charops at Athens was in the first year of his ten-year term as archon.208 For the count of the years requires this; and that each king reigned the number of years is shown in that treatise of mine to which I have referred."

Olympiad 195, year 1= 1 BC, therefore
Olympiad 92, year 2=412 BC.
Now go back to the first consuls at Rome.
Correcting for Dionysius' 2-year lie, the first consuls of Rome took office on Unius 1, Olympiad 68 year 3. 92-68=24, there were four years per Olympiad, 24*4=96. So the first consuls of Rome took office 94 lunar years before Julian day number 1570570.5. The Roman kings ruled for 244 lunar years, according to Dionysius' sources. 94+244=338.

One 10-month lunar year=295.306 days.
Thus the eclipse happened 338 lunar years before 1570570.5.
338*295.306=99814
1570570.5-99814=1470757.5

The eclipse happened around 1470757.5

Using Fourmilab Calendar Converter you find:
September 12, 687 BC = 1470757.5.

Looking at all the new moons around that time, I found the Julian day number of the eclipse.

Eclipse visible from Rome on Julian day number 1470868.5.

The software says that was 686 BC, but I claimed at the start of the thread that the eclipse took place in 685 BC, how can this be?

The answer is there was a year zero between 1 BC and 1 AD.

PROOF THERE WAS A ZERO BC

To accomplish this proof let's find day one of the Julian calendar under the assumption that Julius Caesar added 89 days to the calendar in 45 BC.

(412-44)*365+89 = 134409

1570570.5 + 134409 = 1704979.5 = Ianuarius 1, 44 BC = day 1 of the Julian calendar

2451544.5 = January 1st, 2000

2451544.5 - 1704979.55 = 746565

746565/365.25= 2043.983

Therefore from day one of the Julian calendar to January 1st 2000, there were 2044 years.

Assume incorrectly that there was no zero BC.

From January 1, 1 AD to January 1, 2000 AD, there were 1999 years. From January 1, 44 BC to January 1, 1 AD there were 44 years. 1999+44=2043. Using Julian day numbers we know that this had to be 2044, therefore there was a 0 BC.

Q.E.D.

QED=quod erat demonstrandum= which was to be demonstrated

Therefore, the solar eclipse that marks the founding date of Rome occurred on Julian day number 1470868.5=Aprilius 1, 685 BC = January 8, 686 BC [Gregorian proleptic], which was to be demonstrated. Q.E.D.

Wow very well-researched findings (whether they are accurate or not based on the accuracy of historical dates and astronomical clockwork being consistent over time is a different story) but regardless you put a lot of effort into this and very well may be on to something very pertinent regarding our perception of historical dates and our modern conception of time...welcome aboard!

Couple of questions...do you know if astronomical records from other nations show the same solar/lunar/stellar cycles and eclipses as the Romans (basically are there records from China, Mexico, Egypt, wherever that might corroborate the astronomy of the Greeks and Romans to show that timekeeping was fairly similar to our understanding of time and chronology)?

Do you believe that our celestial clockwork has been the same for thousands of years (such as the same sun/moon positions, the same zodiacal degrees, same timeframe of eclipses, etc.) or could it have been slightly or vastly different from how it's been over ours and the previous few lifetimes?

Numbers definitely aren't my strongpoint but I'm very good with words...I do agree with Frostychud about etymology being a potential blackhole...I have studied etymology for years and can conclude that it is very easy to change words to reflect origins in a language (Latin) that may not have actually been spoken by the people and may have been more of a language used for government, science, etc. much like Phoenician might not have originally been a spoken language but a language for trade and commerce (not saying these weren't spoken languages but it's a theory I'm entertaining). In the end of the day we can only determine word origins based on the information provided to us from languages that have been written. The Sabines were supposed to have been the inhabitants of central Italy when the Romans arrived from Greece. They were said to have spoken on Oscan language that supposedly didn't have any writings (there have been some inscriptions found that are rumored to possibly be of the language but as far as I know nothing definitive). So Latin emerges from the new inhabitants of central Italy known as the Romans after Romulus becomes their first king and they supposedly rape the women of the Sabines. Yet the next king after Romulus is Numa Pompilius who was a Sabine. Apparently they coexisted for hundreds of years and supposedly these same Sabines and Romans would take turns allying and fighting each other. It's all very confusing no matter how many times I try to make sense of it.

Anyways I really enjoyed your post and hope to hear your reply.

 

[Iulius_Severus]

These are the kind of posts I love. Like you, I suspect that there's some truth to Roman history, and that things have been misdated rather than totally fabricated. The etymologies for so many words will always be uncertain, but your speculation doesn't seem unreasonable (i.e. April and Ennius).

I'm curious, have you tried running some of these numbers in light of alternate chronologies? I can see you're working with the view that standard chronology is basically correct -- you know, that the period identified as the 1st century was about 2,000 ago. Alternative chronology can get very... strange, as you probably know, but Gunnar Heinsohn's revisionism of the 1st millennium AD is very compelling imo, despite its problems, and it doesn't simply throw ancient history out the window like other revisionist chronologies. Regardless, thanks for the posts, and for informing me about that astronomical software you're using

 

[LeePappas]

questions...do you know if astronomical records from other nations show the same solar/lunar/stellar cycles and eclipses as the Romans (basically are there records from China, Mexico, Egypt, wherever that might corroborate the astronomy of the Greeks and Romans to show that timekeeping was fairly similar to our understanding of time and chronology)?

For the most part they do not. Records of ancient eclipses are hard to come by, and we are lucky to have any records at all. The following link explains how only recently were Babylonian records of eclipses found. It also contains some information I think you will find very helpful.

Eclipse - Assyrian Astronomy, Lunar Cycles, Solar System

However don't trust the dates in the article, because they are confusing lunar years and tropical years. For instance I can show that the Peloponnesian war began in 429 BC, not 431 BC, therefore the eclipse referenced as having taken place in 431 BC during the war can't be right.
Also it states

Amos 8:9). Amos was prophesying during the reign of King Jeroboam II (786–746 BCE) of Israel, and the eclipse would be very large throughout Israel.
But I can show the reign of King Jeroboam II was (783-751 BC), so you have to realize errors in dates abound, because just about everyone is confusing lunar years with tropical years. Be that as it may, NASA has the eclipse footprint correct, because two sources refer to that eclipse, so they can't hide information this time.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSEmap/-0799--0700/-762-06-15.gif

Also, if you are wondering if it's possible that there would be a record of the 685 BC eclipse somewhere other than Rome, you need the eclipse footprint which should be available at NASA's eclipse website, but strangely it's not there. Now I do think the 685 BC eclipse was visible in Halicarnassus Turkey, they had a record of it in Miletus and Halicarnassus, and that record was used by Dionysus of Halicarnassus, writing in 7 BC.

According to Dionysius of Halicarnassus Rome was founded on Olympiad 7:1, but I can show he lied, because he knew it was founded in Olympiad 7:3. According to him, he found a Censor document dated in the 119th year after the expulsion of the kings in the consulship of Lucius Valerius Potitus and Titus Manlius Capitolinus. But when you count the number of consuls from the first consuls of Rome to their consulship, they were consuls in 117 A Libertate Constituta, not 119 ALC.

List of Roman consuls - Wikipedia

Thus Dionysius deliberately went back 2 years too much, so that anyone who counted the consuls from 1 ALC to L. Valerius Potitus and T. Manlius Capitolinus, could correct his error and determine Rome was founded in Olympiad 7 year 3. He caught the Romans lying about the reign lengths of the Roman kings. His sources said they ruled for 244 years, but his calculations revealed that was really 245 years. So how did he really know the Olympiad Rome was founded in? The answer is found from where he lived, Halicarnassus on the western coast of Turkey near the island of Rhodes. The eclipse of 685 BC passed over Halicarnassus, so he had a record of it. He trusted that record, not the Roman sources. See the link below to see Halicarnassus' location in relation to Rome to realize Halicarnassus was in the path of the eclipse.

Amazon.com

Here's a link showing a map of halicarnassus turkey and the island of Rhodes.

Map of Archaic Greece

As you can see from the map Rhodes is southeast of Halicarnassus and Miletus is Northwest of Halicarnassus. Based on the map I suspect Thales observed the 685 BC eclipse. Aristotle quoted Thales, therefore Thales wrote in Greek. Since Thales spoke Greek, it stands to reason that he knew the Olympiad year of the eclipse, since Olympiad dating was a Greek invention. It was invented to commemorate the battle of Troy. I inferred this from Homer's Iliad.

In chapter 23 of the Iliad, Homer discusses an impromptu Olympics that took place following the Battle of Troy.

Homer (c.750 BC) - The Iliad: Book XXIII

Homer was Jewish, he witnessed the eclipse because the name of the Iliad comes from the Greek word for sun. Homer wrote shortly after the solar eclipse of 685 BC, and named his work accordingly. Homer lived in Ionia Greece, thus he spoke Greek. The reason I know Homer was Jewish is because of his name 'Omer'. See the link below for the Jewish practice of the counting of omer.

Counting of the Omer - Wikipedia

The 685 BC eclipse passed over Homer's location. Click on the link below to see ionia's location.

Ionia | Greece, Map, Location, & Facts

The fact that Homer discusses an Olympics that took place just following the Battle of Troy, implies that the battle of Troy took place around Olympiad 1:1. According to Porcius Cato, Rome was founded 432 years after the battle of Troy. See chapter 74 of Dionysus.

LacusCurtius • Dionysius' Roman Antiquities — Book I Chapters 72‑90

Cato's figure places the battle of Troy in 1034 BC, or 1183 MC. MC is the designation I use for mixed calendar, because it is a mixture of lunar and solar years. There is a five year lie here because the figure 1188 happens to be how long after the Great Flood Rome was founded, it has nothing to do with the Trojan war, and that's 1188 lunar years. In Homer's Iliad the Greeks sent 1183 ships, so Homer was aware of the date of the flood relative to the founding date of Rome, but he supported the 5 year Jewish lie. So Homer rather than Cato is the more reliable source.

I'm going to cover the Trojan war in another thread.

Do you believe that our celestial clockwork has been the same for thousands of years (such as the same sun/moon positions, the same zodiacal degrees, same timeframe of eclipses, etc.) or could it have been slightly or vastly different from how it's been over ours and the previous few lifetimes?

The earth precesses, it wobbles. If you look up axial precession at Wikipedia you will find

"Earth's precession was historically called the precession of the equinoxes, because the equinoxes moved westward along the ecliptic relative to the fixed stars, opposite to the yearly motion of the Sun along the ecliptic. Historically,[3] the discovery of the precession of the equinoxes is usually attributed in the West to the 2nd-century-BC astronomer Hipparchus."

Axial precession - Wikipedia

In 412 BC the vernal equinox was in the house of Aries, today it's in the house of Pisces. The evidence of this is in the etymology of 'January'.

Ianuarius=Ian+ou+arius
Ian [Egyptian]=Ian[Greek]=Ian[Latin]=time, age
Ou(oo)[Greek]=of
Aries[Greek]=Arius[Latin]=Greek god of war

Ianuarius=age+of+Aries

To see that the Greek word for 'of' was spelled omicron upsilon 'ou', and pronounced oo, you can translate Euclid's definition of point.

Semeion estin ou meros outhen. Euclid 'The Elements', Book 1: definition 1
(Sem-ee-awn ess-teen oo mehr-oss oo-then)

A point is of part nothing.
A point is part of nothing.

Sir Thomas L. Heath didn't know the Greek word for 'of' was 'ou', and incorrectly translated that as

A point is that which has no part.

He confused ouk[Greek] = not, no with ou..

 

[Jd755]

No idea why you included me in this reply. Your belief in official aka mainstream websites as being the defacto root of everything you post is crystal clear unless some parts of them are off in your estimation. Not often I agree with gladius but on this occasion I do.

 

[LeePappas]

So Latin emerges from the new inhabitants of central Italy known as the Romans after Romulus becomes their first king and they supposedly rape the women of the Sabines. Yet the next king after Romulus is Numa Pompilius who was a Sabine.

The first king of Rome was Numa, the second king of Rome was Romulus. I will have to go to Great lengths to prove that in its own thread. I don't have the time to do that right now.

No idea why you included me in this reply. Your belief in official aka mainstream websites as being the defacto root of everything you post is crystal clear unless some parts of them are off in your estimation. Not often I agree with gladius but on this occasion I do.

I didn't mean to quote you in this thread, there was a glitch I will delete it.
It's not that I believe in mainstream websites, I do trust them for maps, unless I know the location of a country is mistaken as I do with the location of Carthage, but little else. What I do is take what I know already, and afterwards find websites that corroborate it. Also, in the process of reading the mainstream websites I learn. I get new information and make sure it doesn't conflict with things I already know.

 

[Jd755]

So the maps are okay but the calculations they are produced from are flawed!

Fred Espenak is the chap who ran produced those calculations and maps. They are his from what I can gather not NASA's.

All eclipse calculations are by Fred Espenak, and he assumes full responsibility for their accuracy.

NASA Eclipse Web Site
Here's his website if anyone is interested in this chaps endeavours.
EclipseWise - Solar and Lunar Eclipses

 

[LeePappas]

So the maps are okay but the calculations they are produced from are flawed!

Fred Espenak is the chap who ran produced those calculations and maps. They are his from what I can gather not NASA's.

NASA Eclipse Web Site
Here's his website if anyone is interested in this chaps endeavours.
EclipseWise - Solar and Lunar Eclipses

Something isn't right with Fred Espenak's eclipse that happened at the start of the Peloponnesian war. The war began in 429 BC, but Fred has the eclipse in 430 BC, like historians say. Why did he succumb to a small lie? What I will do is double check my work on the start date of the war. He has the eclipse in August, and I don't remember what month in 429 BC, if memory serves me, the war began.

https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/5MCSEmap/-0499--0400/-430-08-03.gif

Furthermore, he missed the 685 BC eclipse altogether. Something is wrong.

The Internet Classics Archive | The History of the Peloponnesian War by Thucydides

"The thirty years' truce which was entered into after the conquest of Euboea lasted fourteen years. In the fifteenth, in the forty-eighth year of the priestess-ship of Chrysis at Argos, in the ephorate of Aenesias at Sparta, in the last month but two of the archonship of Pythodorus at Athens, and six months after the battle of Potidaea, just at the beginning of spring, a Theban force a little over three hundred strong, under the command of their Boeotarchs, Pythangelus, son of Phyleides, and Diemporus, son of Onetorides, about the first watch of the night, made an armed entry into Plataea, a town of Boeotia in alliance with Athens. "

Pythaodorus is 19 archons back from 1570416.5=Hekatombaion 1,.413 BC. The start of his Archonship was thus on
1570416.5 - 19*295.306 =1564805.5

Or 427.769 BC.

The passage states that the war began in the 2nd to the last month of the year, so on
1564805.5+295-59=1565041.5

Or 427.124 BC.

That's November 16, 428 BC.

Someone lied.

I will assume Fred Espenak's eclipse footprint is right. That means someone moved Pythaodorus' name from where it should be. So they moved it forward by three archons.
1565041.5 - 3*295.306=1564155.5

Or 429.549 BC.

That's June 14, 430 BC. Thucydides said spring, so March 21 it should be. I can make Fred and Thucydides truthful by reinterpreting the passage. When he says, "in the last but two" I will interpret that as the war began in the 8th month of the 10 month year. That means the war began on May 16, 430 BC. Thucydides called that the start of Spring.

It's not surprising that someone moved the name of the archon, because I found the same situation when I tried to figure out when Alexander the Great died.

 

[Gladius]

.
Homer was Jewish, he witnessed the eclipse because the name of the Iliad comes from the Greek word for sun. Homer wrote shortly after the solar eclipse of 685 BC, and named his work accordingly. Homer lived in Ionia Greece, thus he spoke Greek. The reason I know Homer was Jewish is because of his name 'Omer'. See the link below for the Jewish practice of the counting of omer.

Counting of the Omer - Wikipedia

Are you aware that "Homer" is a western rendering? His name is Homeris/Homerus.

Old Jewish texts also call him Hameiras, a Jewish rendering of Homeris.
"Omer" as a Jewish name is from the modern era. No Jew was called Omer prior to 20th century.

 

[LeePappas]

Are you aware that "Homer" is a western rendering? His name is Homeris/Homerus.

Old Jewish texts also call him Hameiras, a Jewish rendering of Homeris.
"Omer" as a Jewish name is from the modern era. No Jew was called Omer prior to 20th century.

Then how do you explain the 1183 ships? Only a Jew would promulgate a 5 year lie, one for each book of the Pentatunch.

The Greek rendering of his name was Omeri, his name is referenced in the Greek national anthem. I would guess the Latin rendering was Homerus. The Western rendering you refer to was made by people who know what I know about the actual 1188 years between the Great Flood and the founding of Rome and the Hebrew 5 year lie for that of 1183, and knowledge of the counting of the Omer.

I would like to know when those Jewish texts you spoke of rendering his name as Hameiras were written. Keep in mind the Jews told many lies throughout recorded history.

 

[Jd755]

Then how do you explain the 1183 ships? Only a Jew would promulgate a 5 year lie.

How do you prove there were 1183 ships?
What size were they?
What were they made from?
What was their means of propulsion?
You say Fred was incorrect yet you call gladius out as a liar.
Double standards if nothing else.
May I remind you of this little snippet you put in your welcome message.

What I would like to do as a member of this forum is have a free exchange of ideas on what really took place in the past.