Could it be that many years ago, several influential people conceived the largest adventure in the history of mankind, which ultimately turned out to be a success? And we are not talking about distortion of certain events like wars or reigns, but about … adding several centuries to the historical chronology.
the seizure of Rome by the barbarians in 410 A. D.
The so-called Phantom Time Hypothesis, proposed by two German scholars Herbert Illig and Hans-Ulrich Nimitz, claims that the Holy Roman Emperor Otto III conspired with the ruler of Byzantium and Pope Sylvester II to add the nonexistent 297 years to the historical record. How is this possible and why did they need it? Let's figure it out.
Many have heard of such a period in the history of the Western world as the Dark Ages. They came after the fall of the Western Roman Empire, when the once powerful state was swept away by streams of various peoples rushing west. The most basic thing that is known about the Dark Ages is that they existed. Having briefly told about the activities of some key figures of this period, for example, about the Frankish king Charlemagne, the official historiography smoothly moves to the period of the early Middle Ages, which is already beginning to be replete with various details. The time from the 6th to the 10th century AD remains a gaping hole in the historical chronicles, which cannot but surprise historians.
It is believed that during this period, the Western peoples did not do absolutely anything interesting in historical terms - a turbulent cauldron of a mixture of various peoples who arrived in the west continued to boil for several more centuries, until, finally, the Middle Ages came. During this period, science and education in Western Europe were at an extremely low level, which explains the scarcity of historical chronicles. This is especially true of the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries, about which we know practically nothing.
Otto III.
So, after the fall of the Western Roman Empire in the 5th century, Europe for many centuries recedes into the shadow of barbarism and ignorance. In the 8th century, on the territory of modern France, the forces of the legendary Emperor Charlemagne created the Frankish Empire, and in the middle of the 10th century, through the efforts of King Otto I the Great, the Holy Roman Empire appeared. Despite the loud name, this state was mostly located on the territory of modern Germany, occupying only a small part of the territory of the Apennine Peninsula. Otto I believed that the state he formed should become the successor … of the very ancient Risk Empire that fell almost 5 centuries ago. Doesn't such adherence to the traditions of a long disappeared state seem strange? But even this is not so much confusing to historians as the character and methods of government of Otto III - a descendant of Otto I,who ascended the throne in 983. Apparently, Otto III had a weakness for everything ancient Roman, gave his entourage resounding ancient titles, and he himself believed in his great destiny for the world. The description of the character of the emperor by his contemporaries shows that for the sake of his greatness he was ready to do anything. And such a case soon presented itself to him.
In 999, Pope Gregory V died. Using unlimited power, Otto III put his supporter Herbert of Aurillac in Rome, who took the name Sylvester II. Christianity in Western Europe and the entire church, which at that time represented the only educational institution, including the one in charge of historical chronicles, ended up in the pocket of a German monk.
Promotional video:
Charlemagne and Pope Adrian I. Perhaps, in reality, these characters never existed.
The other half of Europe was dominated by the Byzantine Empire. For a long time, all manuscripts in the eastern wing of the former Roman Empire were produced in the so-called "Mayuscule", that is, in capital letters without connections between them and without gaps between words. Reading such texts was extremely difficult and tedious. Even a small text in capital letters took up a lot of space, which raised the cost of books. By the 8th century, "Mayuscule" writing began to be supplanted by "Minuscule", which contained capital letters, connections between them and gaps between words. This allowed not only to save paper and improve the readability of the text, but also significantly save the time of the book creators. At the end of the 10th century, the Byzantine emperor became aware of the need to rewrite the old historical chronicles in a new popular minuscule style. And so it turned out that the same Otto III had close family ties with the family of the Byzantine emperors. It turns out that the three main rulers of the entire Christian world by the end of the 10th century were in close cooperation with each other, and in Byzantium there was a rapid rewriting of historical chronicles. German researchers suggest that three politicians entered into a conspiracy and added an extra 297 years to the historical chronicles! All subsequent forgery-oriented historical documents already included this error.that three politicians entered into a conspiracy and added an extra 297 years to the historical chronicles! All subsequent forgery-oriented historical documents already included this error.that three politicians entered into a conspiracy and added an extra 297 years to the historical chronicles! All subsequent forgery-oriented historical documents already included this error.
Herbert of Aurilliac, better known as Pope Sylvester II.
That is, the information that all these historical figures lived at the end of the 10th century turns out to be incorrect. In fact, they lived at the end of the 7th century, but decided to add almost 3 centuries of history that did not exist. Why was this done? Otto III had an extremely precarious position in his empire - the people did not like their emperor, who was obsessed with titles and greatness. To restore power, the emperor decided to bring his reign to the grandiose line - 1000 AD. The idea of reign at the end of the first millennium was probably very popular with Otto, and, in his opinion, should have a positive effect on public mood. For Byzantium, it was an excellent opportunity to rewrite history, removing unpleasant moments from it and saturating the chronicles with the magnificent achievements of their emperors. Perhaps the rulers agreedthat the historians of Otto III and Sylvester II will make changes to the chronicles necessary for Byzantium, and the Greeks themselves agreed to add 297 years of non-existent history in order to bring the reign of Otto III to a beautiful date. The Pope, too, did not mind becoming God's viceroy on Earth at the end of the first millennium.
There is no doubt that this trinity had sufficient capabilities to fulfill their plans. But for this they needed to saturate the invented vacuum, later called the Dark Ages, with some historical events. If you follow this logic, the entire Carolingian dynasty, with Charlemagne at its head, is fiction. Perhaps such an assumption may seem like a consequence of a raging imagination, but German historians have drawn attention to the fact that Karl's biography is almost the only historical chronicle of the Dark Ages. In principle, it was not difficult to come up with them, especially since the literate chroniclers of that time could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Painfully lucky, noble and wise was this king, who managed to create a formidable force from a stormy mixture of barbarian peoples. Isn't Charlemagne,whom Otto III idolized (what a coincidence!), a legendary figure who never really existed?
One of the main proofs of the phantom time hypothesis, besides, of course, the vacuum in historical information about the Dark Ages, is the moment of the transition from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian. As you know, the Julian calendar, introduced by Julius Caesar in 45 BC. was not very accurate - every 128 years it accumulated one extra day a year. Ultimately, after one and a half thousand years, the dates in it have shifted so much that the day of the vernal equinox, from which Easter is counted, has significantly shifted. In 1582, the papal throne announced the transition to a new calendar - the Gregorian one, which corrected the error and was more accurate. The creators of the phantom time hypothesis noticed that when the new calendar was adopted, its creators added 10 days to the existing date,while it would be more correct to add 13 days - it was for this number of days that the Julian calendar was behind reality. As a result, the Gregorian calendar led to 325 AD, when the first Ecumenical Council took place, at which the date of Easter was adopted. But was this not an attempt to disguise those very added years that, perhaps, the papal see was aware of?
Now it's time to turn your attention to European architecture from the Dark Age. Or rather, its complete absence - for almost three centuries nothing was built or designed here. Then, in the early Middle Ages, in many European cities, the Romanesque style suddenly appeared - an artistic style that has close ties with ancient Roman architecture. Is it possible that 5 centuries after the fall of Rome, the architects of Europe were still so dependent on the ancient style, or it can be assumed that much less time has passed since the fall of the ancient empire, and construction after the fall of the Roman Empire did not stop at all, but only slightly changed architecture, having absorbed, however, still a strong ancient culture? If the hypothesis of phantom time is correct, then 150 years that have passed since the collapse of Rome is not such a long time,to forget the Romanesque culture.
Pisa Cathedral, built in the 11th century A. D. - representative of Romanesque architecture. It looks like an example of the smooth development of ancient Roman architecture, as if not much time had passed after the collapse of the empire.
In addition, three centuries without any scientific progress is too long even for a shaken Europe. We remove from the history 3 invented centuries and get a smoother scientific and technological progress, which slowed down during the Great Migration of Nations, but then continued in the early Middle Ages, which, according to the hypothesis, came already 2 centuries after the fall of Rome.
But what about radiocarbon analysis? After all, with its help we can know exactly the time of creation of this or that artifact, and surely among them there will be those that were created in the “non-existent” Dark Ages. Indeed, radiocarbon analysis is a useful method, but it needs calibration, which is carried out by different methods: from dendrochronology to … checking the same historical records that may contain fictitious information.
Of course, phantom time is just a hypothesis. Beautiful, interesting, mysterious, but most likely wrong. For each given argument in favor of defending a hypothesis, a counterargument can be given. For example, the construction of buildings in cities was suspended due to the outflow of residents from them, which occurred as a result of the rupture of economic ties between regions, and the return to ancient culture even after 5 centuries of inactivity can be explained by the absence of its own basis - the architects had to start somewhere. And the same radiocarbon dating method has made significant progress in recent years, adding to its arsenal the calibration for the decay of thorium in corals, for glacial layers, for tape deposits of clay in lakes, which made it possible to confirm with even greater confidence the correctness of today's historiography. Besides,In addition to radiocarbon analysis, there are dozens of other methods of dating historical monuments and artifacts that give approximately the same result. One could also refer to the Muslim chronology of that period, but here the situation remains inaccurate - some dates here coincide well with European ones, while others differ so much that the explanation of the introduction of an additional three centuries begins to look even a little logical.that the explanation for the introduction of an additional three centuries is beginning to look even a little logical.that the explanation for the introduction of an additional three centuries is beginning to look even a little logical.
Ultimately, whether the phantom time hypothesis is true or not makes no sense. After all, no one will turn back time and reprint history textbooks. But for enthusiasts eager to achieve the truth in florid historical chronicles, the phantom time hypothesis offers ample scope for study and discussion.