Was the city of Venice created in the 17th Century?

dreamtime

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2,952
Location
Germany
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:

11296126.jpg

The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.
Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.
According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.
A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)
The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)
Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative scenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.

tnF9crO.png
VLbOBYd.png

The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


n7RxAbs.jpg
(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...


aMa6HiR.jpg

...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:

kTtSWdX.jpeg

But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:

9e62pwL.jpg

Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.

jhHqdBA.jpeg

Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
 

dakotamoon

Active member
Joined
Dec 5, 2020
Messages
31
Reaction score
116
Thanks, great article. Reminds me of the "Pompeii" /Vesuvius issue: Maps of Italy from the 1600's show no Pompeii in existence! So the Roman artifacts found in perfect shape in Pompeii, are completely bogus. There are many eye witness reports of Vesuvius erupting and taking out Pompeii in the 1600's - so the priceless Roman artifacts are nonsense! Rome wasn't there man!
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
442
Reaction score
952
Location
Langobardia
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:


The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.
Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.
According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.
A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)
The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)
Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative szenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.


The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...



...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:


But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:


Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.


Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that they constructed the city on firm land.
 

dreamtime

Administrator/Moderator
Staff member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 25, 2020
Messages
1,154
Reaction score
2,952
Location
Germany
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that the constructed the city on firm land.
thanks for this information.

That's why dates do not matter that much here, and why I still speculate we are talking about the 17th Century and not earlier, even though the map would indicate Altinum disappeared in the 16th Century or earlier. I think we are talking about an event that happened between 1600 and 1800.

They probably invented this Cluver guy in the 17th or 18th century.
 

Silveryou

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Messages
442
Reaction score
952
Location
Langobardia
(I found this post of mine in the archives and thought it deserves its own thread.)

Venice is known for it's hundreds of beautiful canals. Unfortunately the city has been deteriorating as long as people have documented the state of the city, so it's surprising to see historians claim a supposed history of more than 1000 years.

I found an old map from the late 16th, early 17th Century, which does not show Venetia:


The map was published in 1618, and shows the old italy (Italia antiqua), so it probably references an older time than the 17th Century, although "older" could simply mean 100 years earlier.

Instead of Venice it shows the supposedly old, antique, city of "Altinum", and according to Wikipedia, Altinum:

is the name of an ancient coastal town of the Veneti 15 km SE of the modern Treviso, northern Italy, on the edge of the lagoons. Located on the eastern coast of that nation, at the mouth of the river Silis, it was first destroyed by Attila in 452 and gradually abandoned by its inhabitants, who sought refuge in the islands of the lagoon, such as Torcello and Burano, in the area where later Venice would be built.
Altinum was abandoned by its citizens and then sank into the lagoon.
According to archaeologists, Venice's ancestor was surrounded by rivers and canals, including one large canal that ran through the center of the city and connected it with the lagoon.
A digital reconstruction of the area shows that the city stood two to three meters above what was then the sea level. The structure of Altinum was complex and perfectly suited to the particular demands of the swampy environment. Researchers say that it looks like the Romans knew how best to build on this harsh, swampy landscape -- long before they began the construction of Venice in the middle of a lagoon. (source)
The official story is that Altinum was destroyed in the 7th Century AD

But as waves of barbarians invaded, Altinum was a ripe target and, finally, in the 7th century AD, a Lombard invasion pushed the city's remaining residents onto the surrounding islands of the Venice lagoon. (source)
Is it possible that the modern Venetia is not only a product of that catastrophe leading to the sinking of Altinum, but basically a re-incarnation of Altinum? Is it possible that Altinum didn't sink in late antiquity, but only 350 years ago?

Alternative szenario: Here is evidence of the invented 1000-years that Fomenko speaks about, and when the city of Altinum sank somewhere between 1600 and 1700 (in the 17th Century, not the 7th), people were able to save parts of the city, now submerged underwater.
Voila, Venice was (re-)born.


The mentioned 17th Century map clearly shows Venice to not exist, and Altinum to exist. By the way, it also shows Pompeii alive and kicking.
What archeologists are digging out at the historical site of Altinum isn't the entirety of Altinum - it's a small part of a way larger city, most of it now submerged under water or rebuilt into modern Venice.

Before Altinum/Venice god flooded in the 17th Century, maybe with the same event that destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, it was a big city full of water canals, but built on top of the land. The canals did not fill every street, they were strategically built to transport stuff out of the city:


(The orange part is the canal)

This was how the modern area of Venice was built as well, but all streets got flooded with water, so they re-designed the city to work without streets.
You can see the original big "true canal" run through the inner city...



...which originally was basically water-free.
The name of this canal is "Canal Grande", and it follows the natural flow of the original river (called Brenta) that predates the canal. Which means, the canal is not artificial. I suggest: The city was built around this river, originally.

In the 20th century some people thought Venice was some kind of magical city, resting entirely on wooden constructs, like this painting suggests:


But when, in 1996, the theatre „La Fenice“ burned down completely, people were for the first time able to look at the underlying structure:


Turns out, the buldings rest entirely on stone walls.


Only the Renaissance style facades rest on wooden stakes, suggesting a rebuilding effort where the facades had been renovated in line with the new reality that the houses were now basically surrounded by water.

Interestingly the front facades are not completely connected to the houses, but are a bit loose, which means that the city design is earthquake resistant. The front sides are built on top of water-proof limestone (Istrian Stone) to not let the water slip through the facades. This suggest the facades were built later, as a way to protect the original houses from the new water level.

All in all I think Venice as we know it was recreated from Altinum around 350 years ago, with an enourmous building effort to create waterproof and stable house-facades, protecting parts of the original city.

Interestingly, historians do not know how and by whom Venice was created, the origins are entirely in the dark. I suggest that Venetians simply made the best out of it when their city of Altinum was destroyed in the cataclysm of the 17th Century (or maybe a bit earlier) that also destroyed Pompeii and Herculaneum, and many other parts of the world. Parts of the city of Altinum survived, but were now surrounded by a lagoon of water, so in an effort to save a significant part of the city, front facades were built. What they could not save, they demolished.

When the Vatican church created the 1000-year history hoax, the history of Altinum was put back 1000 years into the past, with historians saying it was abandoned in the 7th Century. Instead I suggest it was in fact only abandoned in the 17th Century, and it wasn't run over by attackers, but it was simply submerged in a giant catastrophe. The partially submerged parts that survived became modern Venice.
Pay attention to the fact that the author of that map, Philipp Cluver (Philipp Clüver - Wikipedia) was the "founder of historical geography" and disciple of Scaliger. I agree though that the constructed the city on firm land.
thanks for this information.

That's why dates do not matter that much here, and why I still speculate we are talking about the 17th Century and not earlier, even though the map would indicate Altinum disappeared in the 16th Century or earlier. I think we are talking about an event that happened between 1600 and 1800.

They probably invented this Cluver guy in the 17th or 18th century.
What I mean is that the map is not very reliable, given the author
 

sandokhan

Active member
Joined
Dec 2, 2020
Messages
167
Reaction score
208
Location
EU
Not the 17th century, but the 18th century. See:

 

Mabzynn

Active member
Trusted Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
282
Reaction score
98
As a friendly reminder Attila's throne sits in Venice to this day with a story that says it has nothing to do with the Hun.

People often forget that the Venedi were a group of eastern Slavs. The Vistula Veneti has etymological roots to Sankskrit, Old Irish, Old Norse, High German, etc.

Everyone should invest some time in the Kronika Wielkopolska a history on the Lechia Empire based on compiled written works of the time period on the real history of Poland in the late 1200's. (Ignore the dates as per usual with older history). Janusz Bieszk has some incredible books on the topic.

The Nuremburg Chronicles FOLIO XLIII does provide some important information though regardless of whatever time period we're dealing with:

"Venice, in our time the most renowned city, a noble industrial center of Italy, and the mightiest by land and sea, had its beginning with Aeneti, or Veneti (Heneti), the Trojan. For after the destruction of Troy, Antenor[See Note on Antenor at Folio XXXVI verso.] came there across the Adriatic Sea in ships. And there came with him a great number, called Veneti, who had been drive out of Paphlagonia[Paphlagonia is a district on the north side of Asia Minor, between Bithnynia on the west and Pontus on the east, being separated from the former by the river Parthenius, and from the latter by the Halys; on the south it is divided by the chain of Mount Olympus (according to others by Oglassys) from Phrygia, in the earliest times, but from Galatia afterwards."

So that would put it very close to wherever the destruction of Troy falls on your timeline @dreamtime.
 

Magnetic

Well-Known Member
Trusted Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2020
Messages
320
Reaction score
536
Location
USA
The seas increase in depth in every major worldwide rain cataclysm. Where did these waters come from? They came from the deep sky which the ancients called the deep among other names. The progressive increase in the waters on earth are sequential in nature and every cataclysm increased the depth. We see cities that were built on high dry ground being challenged by the increase in terrestrial waters, St Petersburg for instance. St. Petersburg has great canals and waterworks that were built when it was high and dry. All major rivers that issue into seas and oceans are flat and have no cutting into the ground showing the ocean waters have risen mightily. Venice is a case example of a city built on dry ground that found itself watered in depth from the last few massive disaster super rain events, the last being 1704 (a relative increase in depth of 35-50 feet).
 
Similar threads
Thread starter Title Forum Replies Date
Timeshifter Britain's first city discovered as archaeologists say it was home of people who built Stonehenge Unmatched 2
KD Archive SH Archive Tartarian City of Norumbega was conquered to become Washington, DC General 50
Archive SH Archive Replies Who was St. George the dragon slayer? Archived SH.org OP Replies 22
Archive SH Archive Replies Who was Jesus? Archived SH.org OP Replies 24
Archive SH Archive Replies What was Giovanni Battista Piranesi trying to say. 17-18th century apocalypse? Archived SH.org OP Replies 50
Archive SH Archive Replies What if electricity is simply wrong and was introduced to make us harm ourselves? Archived SH.org OP Replies 17
Archive SH Archive Replies Single Photo: "When Germany was Alemannia" Archived SH.org OP Replies 19
Archive SH Archive Replies Hindenburg: Was Zeppelin technology a threat to the 20th century? Archived SH.org OP Replies 52
Archive SH Archive Replies Welcome to Tenochtitlan as it was in 1520 Archived SH.org OP Replies 65
Archive SH Archive Replies Was the Fourth crusade the First one? Was Babylon located in Cairo? Archived SH.org OP Replies 45
Archive SH Archive Replies Was Cleopatra a medieval queen? Archived SH.org OP Replies 28
Archive SH Archive Replies The Old Testament was created in the 15th Century Archived SH.org OP Replies 39
Archive SH Archive Replies Tartary - an Empire hidden in history. It was bigger than Russia once... Archived SH.org OP Replies 283
Archive SH Archive Replies Cynocephalus Saint Christopher - what was he in reality? Archived SH.org OP Replies 16
Archive SH Archive Replies Cointelpro: Is StolenHistory.org being undermined by (or was it setup from the start) to be Cointelpro? Archived SH.org OP Replies 86
Archive SH Archive Replies America Was Stolen by the Holy Roman Empire Archived SH.org OP Replies 38
Archive SH Archive Replies Abraham Lincoln's real name was Stephen Phelps, and his brothers played Mary Todd Lincoln, Jefferson Davis, Stephen Douglas, and others Archived SH.org OP Replies 23
Archive SH Archive Replies 1,000 extra years of phantom time solved? America was not discovered in 1492? Archived SH.org OP Replies 61
Archive SH Archive Abraham Lincoln Was a Weird Looking Dude Unmatched 26
KD Archive SH Archive Why It Was Faster To Build Subways in 1900 Buildings and Structures 2
KD Archive SH Archive Miracle Milly: dog was cloned 49 times Animals and Creatures 4
KD Archive SH Archive Quinsay was in Russia? TPTB says it was in China. Asia 5
Archive SH Archive Hetepheres I (c. 2600 BC). and what was found in her tomb. Investigation Requests 2
KD Archive SH Archive Anian Regnum - what was it? North America 10
Archive SH Archive St Paul: who was he? Unmatched 17
Clown Of God Persepolis: Was never finished & is therefore only fiction Buildings and Structures 0
Archive SH Archive The Titanic was a Ritual Sacrifice Wars and Conflicts 46
KD Archive SH Archive Was there a Global Flood, or a Disaster in 1860-1870? Unmatched 19
KD Archive SH Archive Was Stonehenge rebuilt, or constructed in 1954? Unmatched 110
Z 250 years ago there was no Russian language yet General 36
ParadigmThreat "I never cared much for studying Human History until I realized it was all lies" Alternative History Community 16
jsoundpro The Architectural "genius" that was Sir Herbert Baker Buildings and Structures 3
F When Christmas was stolen for 15 years. General 7
Catalyst Japan was once a part of the Great Tartaria General 69
Archive SH Archive Replies Was there a Global Flood, or a Disaster in 1860-1870? Archived SH.org OP Replies 17
KD Archive SH Archive Was there a Global Flood, or a Disaster in 1860-1870? Mud Flood and Dust Storm Theory 0
Archive SH Archive Replies The Titanic was a Ritual Sacrifice Archived SH.org OP Replies 46
Archive SH Archive The Titanic was a Ritual Sacrifice Unmatched 0
Archive SH Archive Replies Was Stonehenge rebuilt, or constructed in 1954? Archived SH.org OP Replies 43
KD Archive SH Archive Was Stonehenge rebuilt, or constructed in 1954? Unmatched 0
Archive SH Archive Replies UAP: 1934 Chicago World’s Fair Was Lame Archived SH.org OP Replies 3
Archive SH Archive Replies Who Was Junius? Archived SH.org OP Replies 1
Archive SH Archive Replies Mozart's work was stolen from Saint-Georges. 'Amadeus' tells the story, inverted. Archived SH.org OP Replies 1
Archive SH Archive Replies Tektōn, or why Jesus was most likely a Mason Archived SH.org OP Replies 39
Archive SH Archive Replies Was Czar Ivan the Terrible that terrible, or was he a Caesar Tyrant? Archived SH.org OP Replies 8
Archive SH Archive What if electricity is simply wrong and was introduced to make us harm ourselves? General 2
KD Archive SH Archive UAP: 1934 Chicago World’s Fair Was Lame Expositions and Exhibitions 0
KD Archive SH Archive Where was Jesus really crucified: Golgotha or Cordoba? Where was the real Jerusalem? General 9
KD Archive SH Archive Was the Fourth crusade the First one? Was Babylon located in Cairo? General 3
KD Archive SH Archive What weapon was used to bomb WW2 Dresden? General 27

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Top