The early middle ages never happened

page: 2
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
If this is true we will have to wait another 300 years for 2012 to happen.





posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:33 PM
link   
I have felt that history got far to quiet after the Romans failed.
look at the stories they put in those times. robin hood! King Arthur! I think it should be look’t in to.
and remember when you try to tie history to other countries.
we dont know how much time they added.
the crusades. could they have been to put there version of history around the world?

and for those that doubt.
you believe far worse of the governments today.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Many, when you ask them about what happened between the year 600 and 1100 have a blank mind. Empty. Nothing. What did they teach about that time in History class? Not much. Because so little is known about the early middle ages that they are referred to as Dark Ages. Some believe that the middle ages or at least the early middle ages did not exist!

What do you think?


mr floating i think you are probably a hungarian but anyway...
you could look up...
- the avars, the rhing and what charlemagne bought
- the szekler rampages
- the magyars find god

the europeans probably just wanted to forget the whole thing.



[edit on 7-7-2010 by Parta]



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:12 PM
link   
I'm sorry but the only reason most people draw a blank on the years 600-1100 AD is that they are ignorant of history. The Norman invasion of England was 1066, the First Crusade was 1095, just to name a few. You'd be suggesting that the Renaissance was only a few hundred years after the fall of Rome.

I don't see why anyone would want to buy into this "conspiracy" it serves no beneficial purpose in anyway, certainly not to the believer who comes across as having no validity despite how eloquently they might explain their position.



posted on Jul, 7 2010 @ 10:54 PM
link   
I think a more pertinent question is why the public isn't more knowledgeable of the Ancient Aryan people who originally spread into Europe from the Persian cradle of civilization some 2000 to 3000 years before the birth of Christ?

History of the Ancient Aryans: Outlined in Zoroastrian scriptures.

Mummies of these very ancient Europeans have been found in peat bogs and in the Alps — refer to the discovery of Utsi the so-called Ice Man — and as far east as China, where their mummies predate the earliest known Chinese civilization, as well as the islands of Japan (the native inhabitants of Japan were Caucasians, still known to this day as the Indo-Aryans, who were seemingly thousands of miles displaced from their native lands). There is even speculation that the Aryans seeded oriental civilization.

It is accepted that the Aryans seeded virtually all languages of ancient Europe and were very technically advanced in metallurgy, textiles, medicine, physical therapy such as acupuncture, decorative pigments, and weaponry.

The "Ice Man," for example, a 5000-year-old mummy discovered in the Italian Alps, hidden beneath a retreating glacier, bore acupuncture tattoos along his spine (some 1000 years before the first Chinese civilizations arose), was carrying therapeutic mushrooms in his medicine bag, wore well-tailored clothing and boots, and was toting a beautiful and sophisticated bronze axe...about 1000 years before the acknowledged advent of the Bronze Age in that part of Europe.

For some reason, modern scientists and historians scorn the existence of very early (almost prehistoric) advanced civilizations in the West. They prefer to credit the Chinese with all manner of technical advances while Europe still slumbered in savage ignorance — yet the evidence seems to suggest that technical prowess may have actually migrated from West to East. Which is pretty cool.

It suggests that there may be a great deal we are ignoring about the earliest days of human civilization — data that could, theoretically, answer a lot of our lingering questions about "prehistoric" monolithic structures around the world, not to mention the many bizarre but strangely similar myths of "super civilizations" in the distant past.

Just for the record, the term Aryan wasn't dreamed up by bigots and Nazis... Rather, bigots and Nazis appropriated the stories of the ancient Aryans to buttress their political aspirations in the early 20th Century, just as Nazis appropriated certain symbology (such as the very ancient symbol of good fortune, the Swastika). Unfortunately, such artifacts of ancient history were tainted by twisted modern opportunists.

I mean, hell, a thousand years from now, our own Statue of Liberty — her torch in one hand, a book in the other — may be misinterpreted/reinterpreted as a goddess of book burning, right?



— Doc Velocity







[edit on 7/7/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:55 AM
link   
Thanks for the replies guys. When replying, please keep in mind that Im just throwing the idea of fabricated History out there for Discussion-sake. Im not trying to "sell an idea" or defend the theory.

The best point against the "phantom-time-theory" is that the Chinese and Arabs would have to be "in on the conspiracy", which is totally unlikely.

On the other hand, I wouldnt discount the idea of fabricated History entirely, as some of you seem eager to do. If. for example, History was written by the Greeks and Romans, they would have written it to suit their views. So in keeping an OPEN MIND it could at least be considered.


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by warpcrafter
Interesting theory. Do you have any more evidence or statistics to back it up?


I havent looked into it. I stumbled on it while browsing Wikipedia. Im sure the author linked in the OP has more info on it though.



Because you're gonna need it once people come on here and start tearing your claim up.


People need to relax a little


edit on by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Doc Velocity
 


The Aryans do deserve a feature-story or OP of their own.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 06:55 AM
link   
This is just one of the things I love about ATS. Most people here realize that you don't necessarily have to belive an idea to throw it out there for discussion. While I was researching this theory, I came across a few message boards where this was indroduced. Not only was the theory attacked vehmently, but the OP was too. Good job posters for keeping it civil and participating in a discussion, not an all out attack! And good job OP for the thread!



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 10:08 AM
link   


If. for example, History was written by the Greeks and Romans, they would have written it to suit their views.


I think Byrd would have something to say about this, he has done so in another thread here in A&LC when the same argument surfaced (history being written by the winners)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maegnas


If. for example, History was written by the Greeks and Romans, they would have written it to suit their views.


I think Byrd would have something to say about this, he has done so in another thread here


She


Here in Britain, there is actually now quite a lot of stuff from the 'Dark Ages' - not least the Anglo Saxon Chronicle. There was lots going on here as small kingdoms grew and fought one another. Whilst over in Ireland they quietly kept the flame of knowledge burning (How the Irish saved Civilisation is a good book
)


[edit on 8-7-2010 by Essan]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 12:24 PM
link   
While I don't beleive in any way that this happened, or was even plausible I will conceed that it is an interesting topic for discussion and play along.

The first major issue that I find pretty much agrees with everything previous posters have already state; that the whole world would just stop taking notes until the church said it was ok to start recording again. I'm sorry, but the Vatican doesn't have absolute power yet, close, but not yet. For the sake of the world and our nulcear arsenal, let's hope they never do.

Second and most important: Wikipedia? Seriously?

Check this out: LINK

Anyone who uses Wiki as a research source is automatically thrown out of the discussion by me honestly. It can be edited by anyone at any time. I could go to your source right this moment and edit it to read that 1973 was skipped and that there was no Oil Shortage.

Cmon, speculation is one thing, I will even conceed that it is an interesting idea, however misguided. But you will have to be a little more diligent in your research sources for it to gain validity, especially here at ATS, otherwise you risk ending up like any other non-descript inconsequential forum site that no one remembers.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by darkelf
Interesting idea, but I think that the documentation from China and the Middle East would discredit this idea. I just can't see the whole world agreeing to fake almost 300 years of history for the Vatican.


I can, because these places were incorporated into the Roman World a long time before that.

Once a place is Romanized, well, it's Romanized, and much of Romanization presently is pretending that places that are Romanized are independent and act as independent and sovereign entities to Rome.

Keep in mind the Vatican and the Pope is simply a front for Rome's true oligarchs and principals, much the way Antolinni Olive Oil was a front for Don Corleone.

Because Rome uses a religious front, it's naturally but falsely assumed by most people that those who are not Catholic and not Chrisitian hold no debt of allegiance to it, or would aide it.

This is false, much of the world's power structure relies not just on perpetuating Rome's concept of God, but all of the world's power structure relies on the banking system that's wealth is derived from Rome, and a series of trade and commerce agreements that are all rooted in Roman Law and Rome.

Much of this period that SkyFloating is questioning is the Period where Rome presumably lost all it's power, and simply became a religion, which is the key ellement to the strategy of getting people to think Rome did die and holds no power, instead of the reality that it's nearly conquered the entire world through a shared set of laws, notions of God, banking and commerce. That it remains the driving force and is the secretive Shadow Government that so many people talk about, and even the Powers that Be fear.

On Slave Planet Earth what you don't know can kill you, which is why so much time and energy is spent in teaching people false things to obscure what they don't know.

Yes, you have confidence in what you know, because you truly do believe it, because in part so many other people believe it, but what you don't know as a result of it, is what makes the world such a fun war torn place of conquest, war, scarcity and deprevation.

Those who cling to dogmas in the mounting and often overwhelming evidence that they are dogmas are in fact going to suffer for that.

Thanks.

[edit on 8/7/10 by ProtoplasmicTraveler]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Much of this period that SkyFloating is questioning is the Period where Rome presumably lost all it's power, and simply became a religion


The original Roman Empire split into the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne in the west, and Byzantine in the east.

It very much existed during the so-called 'dark ages' (which it turns out weren't very dark at all)



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Well there may not be much history on the ordinary person but there is plenty of history on who ruled Britain during that time period and I don't see any missing centuries -

www.britannia.com...



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Skyfloating
 


www.abovetopsecret.com...



Great minds think alike?



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Signals
If this is true we will have to wait another 300 years for 2012 to happen.




Im reminded how arbitrary our dates and timelines are.

Maybe its not that important whether 300 years are missing from the calendar or not. On the other hand, anyone able to manipulate peoples perception in that way would have a lot of power.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Essan

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler

Much of this period that SkyFloating is questioning is the Period where Rome presumably lost all it's power, and simply became a religion


The original Roman Empire split into the Holy Roman Empire of Charlemagne in the west, and Byzantine in the east.

It very much existed during the so-called 'dark ages' (which it turns out weren't very dark at all)


Why because Wikipedia says it existed? Yet, did Wikipedia exist at the same point of time and space to truly know that?

The answer is no.

I did get a chuckle out of you using those sources in a short and dismissive attempt to simply reinforce dogmas, as it's easier to do than to consider and investigate the other possibilities!

As someone who has authored countless posts and threads on the Roman Empire and the ancient world, trust me when I say I am quite familiar with all of history's dogmas.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 04:50 PM
link   
www.cl.cam.ac.uk...

Theres an essey about this very topic, written by a doctor, and his fellow researchers from the early 90's.

His assertion is that basiclay 300 years of history should not be there, either by accident or design. If you do not want to read this, though i seriously recomend you do if you want to enjoy this thread, then in his first paragraph he cites the Chapel of Aachen, as it seems to be at least 200 years before its time, with regards to its architecture. He presumably goes on to describe many more instances.

Sorry if this has been posted before, i tend to skim through a lot of the fluff on these threads, sorry, its just the way it is.

Oh and i can add, he does make a fair point, even in my country, from about 300 to 600 history is very very very sketchy indeed. Hell of a lot of presumptions going on about it to be honest.

Just realised this is an essay by the man who developed the original hypothesis and this essay basicaly created the entire concept some of which the OP is taken from.
[edit on 8-7-2010 by Johnze]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Johnze]

[edit on 8-7-2010 by Johnze]



posted on Jul, 8 2010 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


So are you saying that the Middle East and China were under Roman rule and the entire Tang Dynasty never existed?





top topics
 
25
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join