3 ms·

Well, Fomenko attacks all methods of dating events for their drawbacks, but the core of his theory is very vulnerable to being self-contradictory. He doesn't tr

Well, Fomenko attacks all methods of dating events for their drawbacks, but the core of his theory is very vulnerable to being self-contradictory. He doesn't trust the narrative sources when it comes to names and such, considering that Genghis Khan and Ceasar and Jesus Christ to be one person (names picked from the top of my head, but such conjunctions are typical to F.) based on similarities in reign lengths, but he somehow trusts that descriptions of astronomical events to be very exact. Like, source claimes that during Fukidides eclipse there were stars visible, but modern calculation shows that at most Venus could be visible. So he discards 1500 years of history because of that plural wording. So ancient scribes took extreme liberties with names of rulers and countries, but somehow preserved the plural form of a noun 100% verbatim. And he also completely ignores all non-narrative historical documents, like financial receipts, sales invoices, banking books, etc, which are numbered in millions and were certainly not produced by a sinister sect in 18th century which decided to falsify all history.

enriquto 5y ago
Heh, I'm not supporting Fomenko's chronology, it seems totally bonkers to me. Still, I'd love to be able to talk to him and listen what he has to say about all these questions that you mention. Or, even better, since he new Vladimir Arnold (they wrote a book together), I'm extremely curious to know whether they talked about history, and what did Arnold think about Fomenko's theories; being a remarkably down-to-earth fellow, for sure he wasn't having any kind of bullshit. In my mind, Arnold mercilessly mocked Fomenko's shit, and Fomenko's couldn't do anything but self-deprecatingly joke about himself, defenseless in front of the greater man.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  My personal theory is that Fomenko had figured out the errors in his books pretty early, yet, they were very popular and he had established a very lucrative career for himself in the difficult 1990s, so he just continued to publish more books rehashing the same thing over and over and over again, despite knowing the theory to be false. In Russian bookstores of the period there were very long bookshelves filled with his books.

enriquto 5y ago

Heh, I'm not supporting Fomenko's chronology, it seems totally bonkers to me. Still, I'd love to be able to talk to him and listen what he has to say about all these questions that you mention. Or, even better, since he new Vladimir Arnold (they wrote a book together), I'm extremely curious to know whether they talked about history, and what did Arnold think about Fomenko's theories; being a remarkably down-to-earth fellow, for sure he wasn't having any kind of bullshit. In my mind, Arnold mercilessly mocked Fomenko's shit, and Fomenko's couldn't do anything but self-deprecatingly joke about himself, defenseless in front of the greater man.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
My personal theory is that Fomenko had figured out the errors in his books pretty early, yet, they were very popular and he had established a very lucrative career for himself in the difficult 1990s, so he just continued to publish more books rehashing the same thing over and over and over again, despite knowing the theory to be false. In Russian bookstores of the period there were very long bookshelves filled with his books.