Larsguy47

Hello? I'm redating the eclipse from 431 to 402BCE? The 431BCE eclipse is annular and doesn't work, it's not intense enough to produce stars seen in Athens. The 402BCE eclipse does. You can't quote from an Encyclopedia about what I'm contradicting unless you have a quote establishing the eclipse works. But it doesn't as noted by others, that's why it is being moved. The 402 BCE is TOTAL, not annular as the 431BCE eclipse is.

Not the best comparison graphic, but you can see the 402BCE actually occurs over Athens, but the 431 BCE does not, it occurs over Asia Minor.



Here are the two eclipse details from NASA for 431 (-430) and 402 (-401):

-0430 Aug 03 14:58 A 48 0.842 0.984 68.2N 5.8E
-0401 Jan 18 08:38 T 44 0.816 1.044 33.1N 50.0E

NASA Ancient Eclipses 0499-400 BCE

Notice that the -430 eclipse is "A" for annular but the -401 eclipse is noted "T" for TOTAL.

Sorry, 402BCE actually occurring over Athens and a Total vs Annular eclipse will beat out partial eclipse in 431BCE any day of the week. No contest.


This eclipse has nothing but detractors. The experts debunk it!


Check the over 80 quotes from Aristotle regarding Socrates and make up your own mind.

I don't care, and I don't intend you. You can't prove I'm lying so you'll have to go on the quotes from Aristotle and whether the eclipse evidence redates the Greek timeline, which it has.

He wasn't. Socrates was the same age as Plato's older brothers and he knew Plato in his youth. When the chronology is corrected, Socrates is born in 435BCE which makes him only 7 years older than Plato. Aristotle was raised by Socrates and then when he died Plato became the teacher of Aristotle.

Yeah, so I heard. But if he was an invention, likely they invented that too, or perhaps there was a real "Phaedo" that got mixed up with the Phaedo who was the lover of Socrates.

The testament there is that both Xenophon and Plato provide us with the dialogues of Socrates, so they are the most likely to have "edited" him. The dialogues are written in the first person as if Socrates himself wrote them. Now why is that? The theory is that they revised the history of Socrates and had to edit all his writings but wanted to preserve his dialogues so both of them published them to make sure they survived. Plato and Xenophon were in on this together and likely were paid enormous sums to revise this history. That is why they survive so well, they are the editors!


[/QUOTE]

And you shouldn't believe what can't be confirmed! I don't blame you. So just dismiss that part of the story. You still have to redate Socrates from 435-366BCE and you can pretend Aristotle and Socrates never saw each other even though both of them knew Plato. Be my guest.

LG47

Weltall

You know, all Lars has to do is start throwing in random anime allusions and he'll officially be the reincarnation of Dilandau.

RED DAVE

One of the roots of Larsguy47's historical fantasies involves the dating of the Peloponnesian War. One of the ways that the start of the war is dated (there are others) is by using Thucydides account of an eclipse, which is dated, conventionally, at 430 BCE. Larsguy47 opts for a different eclipse: that of 401 BCE.

He claims that since the 430 eclipse is described as annular at Athens and the eclipse of 401 is described a total at Athena, the 430 eclipse doesn't cut it.

The problem, beside the fact that all of Greek history has to be redated (not just the Peloponnesian War, but everything else), which leads Larsguy47 to such bullshit as Aristotle and Socrates having been lovers, despite the fact that Aristotle was born after Socrates died, is that there's a real problem with the way that Larsguy47 deals with the eclipse problem.

Larsguy47 alleges that the eclipse of 430 can't be the correct one as it doesn't correspond to Thucydides' description.

So let's see what Thucydides actually wrote.

From Thucydides:
http://classics.mit.edu/Thucydides/p....2.second.html

So, let's do a little work.

(1) Notice that there is no reference to where Thucydides was when he saw the eclipse. Larsguy47 assumes it's Athens. But there's no proof of that. If any classics scholars know where he was at the time, please post it. So the description of either eclipse could change considerably if Thucydides were somewhere else, north or south of Athens.

(2) Now Thucydides describes the sun as being a crescent. An annular eclipse, where the Moon is too close to the Earth to fully cover the Sun, so the Sun looks like a ring, is not well described as a crescent. But in another one of his posts, Larsguy47 posted an illustration that had the Sun looking like a crescent at the moment of totality during the 430 eclipse. This would occur during an annular eclipse when the Moon is totally within the circumference of the Sun, with one edge of the Moon close to or touching the edge of the Sun. This requires some more study.

However, be that as it may, anyone describing the 401 eclipse as a crescent would be negating the essense of a total eclipse, where the Sun is totally covered by the Moon. So, while there are some probelms, still, with the description corresponding to 430, to use Thucydides' words to describe the eclipse of 401 is ridiculous.

(3) Now we have some fun. Thucydides clearly says that the eclipse took place during the "summer." The eclipse of 430 took place on August 3, as is indicated by Larsguy47's post above. So that's cool. However, the eclipse of 401 took place on January 18. So, unless Thucydides couldn't tell the difference between summer and winter, the eclipse of 401 is out.

(4) More fun. Thuycides says that the eclipse that he saw took place "after noon." And, indeed, the 430 eclipse took place at 14:58, which is 2:58 in the afternoon. However, the eclipse of 401 took place at 8:38 in the morning. So, it's out.

(5) So, the only ambiguity we have to clear up is the issue of Thucydides claiming that he saw "some of the stars." Just off the top of my head, without deeper analysis, it would seem quite reasonable that "some of the stars" could be visible during an annular eclipse where so much of the sun is covered that it appears not as a ring but as crescent.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

WARNING FOR RED DAVE: The more you find out about this, the more you're going to get entangled. But I applaud you for at least looking this stuff up!:devil1:

Sorry, I'm the blame for that. Annular vs total is a second-line of confirmation. The first line is the chart I posted which shows that the 431BCE eclipse occurs over Asia Minor. That's the primary difference here. That is, it would have been seen as a "partial" eclipse in Greece, and because of that, it would not have created the effect described by Thucydides of the stars coming out which happens when you are on the very edge of the eclipse. Eclipse tracks are about 93 miles wide, so it is not a large area.

So it is really total-total vs partial-annular at Athens. For sufficient darkness as described it has to be a total eclipse.

The primary reference about this eclipse has been the academic dismissal by Stephenson and Lou


I've already handled that, and THERE'S NO PROBLEM. Case in point, "The Delian Problem" says that Plato was consulted at the beginning of the PPW in 430BCE. He wasn't born until 428BCE. This comparison, if we presume to link the PPW with when Plato was at least 20-25 years of age would mean looking for an eclipse sometime after 408BCE! So your presumption that there would be huge upheaval in Greek chronlogy is just the opposite! You see, if you move the PPW down to 403BCE then Plato is actually born and 25 years old when he gets consulted. Right now that reference doesn't work. And there are lots of other examples. The reference to Socrates and Aristotle is just a tease because I found a reference to that in a book on Greece. There's nothing that would suggest that otherwise, but when I compared Phaedo's age with that of Socrates at the time of his death, having redated his birth to 435BCE it worked out perfectly. That is, if Phaedo was 18 when Socrates dies at 69 in 366BCE, then he would have been born in 384BCE, the same year as Aristotle. Of course, Aristotle mentions Socrates quite flatteringly in his writings over 80 times. You must decide if the man was dead 16 years before he was born or not.

I have other references like that of Hippocrates whose writings they say span too long a time for him to have written everything. But they either have to dismiss the first half or the last half! When you reduce the chronology then everything falls into place. So you see the effect of revisionism. It makes things impossible, but when you correct them, things fall back into place.

Also you must understand the SPECIFICS. That is, not the well established intervals but where the extra chronology is inserted. In this case, if 30 years were added between the PPW and the Persian Wars, you have to reduce that Period. That's the Period of Cimon and Pericles. That's all. The PPW, of course is downdated 28 years from 431 to 403BCE. No problem there either since this is called the "darkest period in human history" and is entirely dependent upon Xenophon's history! So there is no problem reducing this. For instance, the reign of Artaxerxes III is supposedly 47 years long, longer than any other Persian King. But there's nothing that survives about him at all except via Xenophon and Ktesias, who says he was his physician for 17 years.

Or what about the relative ages of Plato and Socrates. Socrates was the same age as Plato's older brothers when they were still all young and at home. When he is born in 435BCE he is still older than Plato by 7 years. But with the revised chronology he is 41 years older than Plato, meaning at around 10 instead of having 17 and 18-year brothers still at home talking philosophy, you have two two brothers along with Socrates in their 50's!

So, don't PRESUME it will be a big mess. It won't! Everything falls back into place. The "problems" are in your imagination. You must deal with the specific corrections and then everything works.

ROFL! Gladly. This eclipse if far more famous than Thucycides' reference. It is the folklorically famous eclipse of PERICLES. That's why this eclipse is so important. So Plutarch also mentions the eclipse.

Here's the children's version of this story but it gives us the details you wanted, PRECISE LOCATION!

Two years before his death a war broke out between Athens on the one side and Sparta and her allies (friends) on the other, and this war lasted thirty years; but Pericles only saw the beginning of it. Sad indeed he would have felt if he could have looked on to the close of the war and seen his beloved city defeated and its walls thrown down. He had fitted out a fleet of one hundred and fifty ships, and had just gone on board his own galley when the sky became dull and the earth took on a strange, gray color. Can you guess what had happened? The moon was passing between the sun and the earth, and so casting a shadow. It was an eclipse (or hiding) [42] of the sun. The Greeks were in much fear, and the pilot of the commander's ship trembled exceedingly. Then Pericles took off his cloak, and placed it over the man's eyes, and said:

"Are you frightened at my cloak eclipsing you?"

"No, sir."

"Well, then, why are you frightened at the eclipse of the sun, which happens to be caused by something bigger than my cloak?"

The pilot regained his nerve, and the story was told from mouth to mouth, and there was no more terror in the fleet.
About Pericles


Therefore, you have your historical location: THE ATHENS HARBOR!

This is irrelevant for this comparison since you don't understand the well-known location of this event was in Athens. The 431 BCE was only "partial" in Athens, so it really doesn't matter that this was an "annular" eclipse or not simply based on that, as above.

Yes, more "study" or more quotes from me. Astronomically speaking, this would have to be a total eclipse where the edge of totality was being viewed closely enough so that there was darkness. In a total eclipse after it gets totally dark, a thin crescent begins to show while it is still dark and then as the totality decreases and the sun light shines forth it gets light again and the stars disappear. Some people in Athens experienced the total eclipse, of course, and some saw the very edge of the eclipse. That references locates this eclipse so specifically that it completely eliminates any eclipse event likely in a 1000 years in either direction. That's because you have a specific location, Athens, the Athens Harbor, and the description of an eclipse that is possible with only a total eclipse.


This is okay. This just shows you don't know a lot about astronomy. But that's okay! Neither did I at first. So just as an explanation: When a total eclipse happens, either total or annular, it only happens in a path about 93 miles wide. This is called the "eclipse track" It is the track of totality, those who see the total eclipse. But outside that 93-mile track people experience varying degrees of partial eclipses. Thus whoever described this eclipse was on the very edge of the eclipse track, close enough so that they experienced total darkness and the stars came out but still not within the track zone enough so that the very thin crescent that disappears last didn't go away. So they are not talking about whether the eclipse itself was partial or total, generally, but partial or total for a specific LOCATION. And that location is Athens. That's why I gave the location with these comparisons. This is totality at Athens for both eclipses:



But this is good. You need to completely understand the significance.

Thus the eclipse as described from Athens, requiring a total eclipse to occur in Athens where some people also experienced the very edge of the eclipse would not occur with the 431BCE, the edge of the eclipse track was no where near Athens. But the 402BCE eclipse was! That's why you can based on this reference redate or try to redate the PPW to 403BCE (the war began in the summer).

Now, from a "revisionist's" point of view, it was not necessary for Thucydides to describe that eclipse so precisely. He would have just mentioned "an eclipse." Since Xenophon redacted Thucydides, writing the last 7 years of the war and destroying the work of Thucydides and changing the part about the 20 years to 50 years between the wars, etc. he purposely described this eclipse so specifically that "insiders" would know the eclipse was redated! So he's playing the same game as Herodotus! Herodotus does the same thing with the Thales predicted eclipse, giving critical details about the actual eclipse in the context of the revised text, thus if an astronomer tried to match it, it doesn't match. People presume it's just an error they made or a slip or something. But it actually gives away the original event! So 403BCE is definitely when the war began, and Plato at 25 was consulted to help when the plague broke out!

Yes, fun! You are forgetting that the 431BCE eclipse, which does happen in the summer is meant to replace the 402BCE eclipse, which happens in the winter. So, of course, if they happen to mention the time of the year of the eclipse they'd say it was "summer." But as you see, the eclipse itself doesn't fit the description. But there is little worry here because of what was happening. When Pericles set out to sea, the plague had already broken out. You see, Pericles didn't want to engage the Spartans in the outlands so he had everybody come into Athens. The overcrowding caused the plague to break out. Finally, Pericles set out to sea. The conflict began in the summer. Therefore, the eclipse dated in the summer does not give enough time for the plague to break out and for Pericles to go on his voyage. Thus some details of the context, are more consistent with this happening later, after the plague breaks out and later when Pericles describes to sail. Thus the 402BCE January eclipse allows about six months for events to transpire, the plague to break out and all that before Pericles finally leaves. But the eclipse in August, in mid summer gives you only a month at most for everything to happen before Pericles sails and then the eclipse occurs while he was at the harbor. So not worried about the specific reference this occurred in the summer. It doesn't work in the summer.

Again, since XENOPHON, who is editing this wanted to reference the 431BCE eclipse, his reference to the time and time of the year are to make the 431BCE eclipse look authentic, while he at the same time described this eclipse so specifically it would point to 402BCE. So we'd just presume that the time and time of the year were inserted to match the 431BCE eclipse and so it is irrelevant.

[/QUOTE]

Nice try, but as I noted above, this eclipse occurs specifically in Athens and thus the 431BCE was not even "annular" at Athens, it was a partial eclipse only. The only way to see the stars is directly in the path of the eclipse or where you're so close to the edge that the primary light of the sun is shadowed by the moon, but you still see the last remaining crescent. That is not possible with the 431BCE eclipse from Athens. But it is with the 402BCE eclipse.

FINALLY, please note that Thucydides was honest and wrote his history. His history when it was finished became a problem for the Persians who had revised their history. That history would show that Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same person. So they hired Xenophon to make changes in this work or suppress it. Xenophon then is the one who had to change the eclipse from 402 to 431BCE. 431BCE was an attractive subsitute eclipse because it occurred in the same cycle of the Olympic year. Both 403 and 431 are year 1 of the Olympic cycle! So every reference to this eclipse would have had to have been added by Xenophon.


Generally, Thucydides is considered redacted and Xenophon is seen as the primary suspect:

In "The Complete writings of Thucydides" in the Introduction it notes: "It is true that Xenophon and two other historians whose works are lost continued the History from where he dropped off..."

You see, the last 7 years of the history of Thucycides is missing, but Xenophon starts his history as if it were the next line! But if you read Thucydides, it is clear he finished his work. Another giveaway is that Xenophon, like Herodotus, supposedly "Greek" Historians, botk are focussed on Persian history!

For more details, read up on Xenophon and Thucydides as historians. You'll run into things like this:

The Hellenica (Greek history) by the Athenian historian Xenophon (c.430-c.354) begins at the point where Thucydides' History of the Peloponnesian War breaks off. This continuity, however, does not apply to the depth of the analysis, because Xenophon lacks the objectivity of his predecessor.

From: Greek Historians

Thanks so much! If you don't have these clear in your mind, then probably a percentage of others are making your same presumptions, so I'm glad you're grilling me on this.

ASK QUESTIONS! BE PRECISE. CHECK OUT THE DEAILS!!!

But the more your learn, the more plausible the revision starts to look. And this is just dealing with one astronomical event. There are several others!

DON'T FEEL BAD: Now don't feel badly because even NASA is short-sighted on this subject. Here is their quote at their webside regarding how eclipses could not be predicted in ancient times! This suggests that the Thales eclipse was not predictable! Point being, a reasonable presumption even by experts does not always take into consideration the whole picture:

But this is just not true. This is NASA talking. Someone whom I know you'd be quoting to contradict me. But, in fact, there was a rare pattern of predictable eclipses that occurred every 54 years and 1 month that after observing the location of the total eclipse track the second eclipse in the series was predictable by both date and location, the precise month and location. So this pattern of consistency for solar eclipses is not even appreciated or known by NASA but they have made a judgment call on ancient astronomers not being able to predict solar eclipses. And people would quote this.

But as you can see from these eclipses, all 54 years 1 month apart and occurring very consistently the same distance apart (about 15 degrees farther north), if you experienced a total eclipse in this series, then you could predict the time and location of the next. The next eclipse would be about a 50% (partial) eclipse for that specific location, but you could travel to the location 15 degrees farther north to that specific location and experience the next eclipse in totality if you wanted.



Of course, not only does this show a predictable eclipse pattern, it confirms that the famous 763BCE eclipse dating the entire Assyrian Period was one of them! So NASA is wrong in this case. I've proven that Thales could have predicted the eclipse over Ionia because of a total eclipse occurring in Egypt where he studied astronomy for seven years. They knew when and where the next eclipse would happen and told Thales and since Ionia was his homeland he "warned" them about the coming eclipse, and thus became famous.

Check out the relationship of where Ionia was in relation to Egypt. You see, it is directly below it! Therefore, the concept of the location of the eclipse was not necessarily related to the eclipse track but just a location directly north by approximately 15 latitudinal degrees!



This PPW eclipse and the Thales eclipses are the two most important eclipses for dating, they are the most famous and they both realign with each other! When 403 BCE begins the PPW then Xerxes invades Greece in 424BCE and Marathon occurs in 434BCE, where Darius dies. Per the Bible that's his 6th year, the year the temple was completed. That means that the 1st of Cyrus occurs in 455BCE. Cyrus ruled for 20 years first over Persia but not Babylon from when he overthrew Astyages in the sixth year of Nabonidus. That's recorded in the Nabonidus chronicle. That means Nabonidus began his rule in 480BCE. But he gave up the throne in his third year to his son. So the eclipse of Thales happens best during the first 2 years, basically, of the reign of Nabonidus, which is 480-478BCE. The predictable Thales eclipse occurs by the above pattern based upon the first eclipse in Egypt in 478BCE!

Thales eclipse redated.

Therefore, as part of substantiating the redating of the PPW to 403BCE based upon this eclipse, I also have a confirmation of the most famous eclipse ever, the Thales eclipse mentioned by Herodotus! But it pays to know a little bit more about eclipses and astronomy, for sure!!!

Glad to help!!

Anytime!!! :wave: :wave: :notworthy: :notworthy:

RED DAVE

So it all comes down to:

Sorry, Larsguy47. You are going to have to prove that the specific passage, which I quoted, which gives the time of year and time of day of the 430 eclipse, was altered. By the way, it occurs early on in Thucydides, Book II.

The burden of proof of alteration to the text is on you. Hopefully, you'll do better thanyour fantasy that Aristotle and Socrates were lovers after Socrates' death.

RED DAVE

French Prometheus

Sigloi (and darics which are derived from them) were only minted in the Western (Greek) part of the Persian Empire. But even so, these similar representations are probably coincidental.

Only by the Greeks, who actually had limited knowledge of the complex structure of the Persian Empire beyond Anatolia. Even Herodotus got a lot of things wrong when he traveled to Babylonia.

No. There's no connection between Μηδία and Μεδουσα.

Yes.

spin

I didn't take much notice when Larsguy47 ratted on about Socrates and Aristotle, but as it didn't die, I went back to look at what he was raving about and it seems that Larsguy47 has convinced himself that every time Aristotle cites Socrates (apparently from Plato's writings) Aristotle is supposed to have derived the information directly from Socrates. This is just so silly, it's unbelievable.

More totally blunder-level logic is to claim without evidence that Xenophon colluded with the Persians (against whom he had participated in an expedition which led to a long escape from the Persians) to alter the text of Thucydides. Although he cannot demonstrate this claim, we shall contemplate what this means: Thucydides has been altered in some way and Larsguy47 claims he can tell where, but of course he has no evidence for that at all, so in the end he can only guess at what parts of the text Xenophon was supposed to have altered Thucydides.

This would mean that if I called Larsguy47 to show how there could have been a solar eclipse in the eighth year of the war -- as Thucydides writes: "In first days of the next summer there was an eclipse of the sun" --, Larsguy47 would say but you can't go on what Thucydides wrote, because Xenophon rewrote it. Thucydides becomes useless for Larsguy47: he has canceled it out of his range of evidence by nullifying its validity.

Then we come to Larsguy47's insistence that Darius only reigned for six years. Check this page out for the documents dated during the reign of Darius:

1. From the thirty-second year of the reign of Darius

   One talent one qa of dates from the woman Nukaibu daughter of Tabnisha, and the woman Khamaza, daughter of _______, to the woman Aqubatum, daughter of Aradya. In the month Siman they will deliver one talent one qa of dates. Scribe, Shamash-zir-epish, son of Shamash-malku. Shibtu, Adar the sixth, thirty-second year of Darius, King of Babylon and countries.

2. From the thirty-fifth year
   

   Six talents of wheat from Shamash-malku, son of Nabu-napshat-su-ziz, to Shamash-iddin, son of Rimut. In the month Siman, wheat, six talents in full, he will deliver in Shibtu, at the house of Shamash-iddin. Witnesses: Shamash-iddin, son of Nabu-usur-napishti; Abu-nu-emuq, son of Sin-akhi-iddin; Sharru-Bel, son of Sin-iddin; Aban-nimiqu-rukus, son of Malula. Scribe, Aradya, son of Epish-zir. Shibtu, eleventh of Kislimu, thirty-fifth year of Darius king of countries.

3. Another supplying the thirty-fifth year thus

   Dated at Shibtu, the twenty-first of Kislimu, the thirty-fifth year of Darius.

There are numerous other references if one bothers to look.

Plainly Darius reigned for over 35 years, so the notion that he reigned only six years proposed by Larsguy47 is preposterous.

I could then go to Egyptian history from the time of the strife between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger (404-401BCE) during which time Amyrtaeus led Egypt to break away from Persian hegemony and for the next 70 years Egypt was independent, but Larsguy47 wants to chop 30 years out of the history so that 431BCE becomes 402BCE, but how do you chop 30 years out of the Egyptian chronology for the period? Obviously you don't. Larsguy47 talks fluent rubbish.

There are so many holes in this shite that Larsguy47 has dished up, he shows himself to have wasted the years he has dabbled in this material. He hasn't got a single firm historical point from which to hang this unholy load of crud.

I'm sure he will soon be heading into my ignore list. And I recommend you do the same


spin

3DJay

This is nutty.

Lars, there are exactly 50 full years "between" the retreat, in 480, and the start of the war, in 431, plus a remainder of some months that dip into each of those years. You don't even know basic math.

Don't know why you refer to the Olympics. There was an Olympics in 480 BC, as well. So, it's a moot point.

You now have the war overlapping with Athen's regaining its independence, 403 BC. Don't know where you're moving that to. You've got the war ending, after Socrates' death, 399 BC, who is specifically put to death, after Athens regains its democracy, from Sparta. If you move Socrates' death, you'll have to move your other actors, as well. If you move them, you'll run them back into the timeline you have a problem with. Then ou'll have to move the timeline, again. Which, in turn, will lead to having to move Socrates' death. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rewritting history sure sounds like a hard job.

You don't seem to understand that shortening reigns, doesn't make years disappear. You now have to account for where all the events went to. Take your mashing of Xerxes with Artaxerxes. Even if you could prove it was one guy, using two names, the events associated with those two names, still span a certain amount of time. You don't end up with a Xerxes/Artaxerxes, that only reigned for 41 years. You end up with one who reigned for 62 years, unless you can make described events just disappear.

Your length for Darius' reign is absolutely ridiculous. It took Darius 3 years just to quell the civil war. That only leaves him 3 years to marry 6 wives and have double digit children, build a canal, build an extensive road system including rest stations and guard outposts, build extensively in Susa, build extensively in Persepolis, introduce the Daric, introduce the Aryan script, have two excursions into Greece, have an excursion into Scythia, visit Egypt at least twice, ...

...and also start planning a third excursion into Greece, when he died. The reference to Darius dying and the "Persian War", is quite simple if "Persian War" refers to the massive invasion of Xerxes, who started prepping less than 2 years later.

You claim a source thinks Darius is insignificant, yet the source dedicates 4 out 9 books of his history to the reign of Darius...1 to Cambyses. Your other source wrote a book about Artaxerxes II, that has a mention of Artexerxes I, at the start, stating outright that he's Xerxes son. Your own quote, from that source, states outright that the Artexerxes telling better fits the chronological tables, than the Xerxes telling of other historians.

I say that knowing, when your own sources are used against you, you then claim they were edited by conspirators, so aren't reliable. But....you just used them, yourself.

You just keep making assertion, after assertion, with no real proof. "it is proven by the Bible" ~ BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! :rolling:

Awwww, but bashing your head against a wall is fun. :banghead: :Cheeky:


Peace

Larsguy47

A matter of semantics and interpretation. You're including those months in the inclusively and I'm excluding those months, so that's okay. I see your point.

Yes there was. I was calculating the years between the two events exclusively instead of interpreting it as you do so that it includes the year one war ends and the other begins. There is a 2-year difference in the argument, but I concede to your interpretation. That is, if you don't count either the year of the retreat or the year the PPW began and there is 50 separate years between each, then it makes a two-year difference. But I see your point of view if you include both. It's a matter of interpretation, and being such I concede to your point/interpretation.


Um, I presumed you knew when I moved the PPW I moved ALL HISTORY in a block with it. So for the record, the entire 27-year event of the PPW and the history associated with it are moved down in time 28 years. Thus you look for contradictions or loopholes in the period after the PPW would have ended. That is if the war really began in 403BCE then it would have ended in 476BCE. So look at Greek history for 476BCE and start looking for loopholes/comparisons. Just as I did when moving the PPW down to 403 BCE and compare that with "The Delian Problem" where Plato is being consulted regarding stopping the plague. Plato is 25 in 403 instead of not born yet for two years in 431BCE. I don't know, it just makes more sense to me that he would have been born and an adult before he would have been consulted. Call me crazy. ???:huh:


Again, when you move a major historical event, everything moves with it, so the death of Socrates, who was 32 when the war began would have been born in 435BCE, only 7 years older than Plato, and his death at 69-70 would have been in 366-365BCE when Aristotle and/or Phaedo was 18-19. It would be interesting what history is said to have been occurring in Greece around 476 BCE. If there is no much history there then it works out. Remember that by 358BCE, the beginning of the rule of Artaxerxes III all history is back in sync.


If you move Socrates' death, you'll have to move your other actors, as well. If you move them, you'll run them back into the timeline you have a problem with. Then ou'll have to move the timeline, again. Which, in turn, will lead to having to move Socrates' death. Etc. Etc. Etc. Rewritting history sure sounds like a hard job.

You don't seem to understand that shortening reigns, doesn't make years disappear. You now have to account for where all the events went to. Take your mashing of Xerxes with Artaxerxes. Even if you could prove it was one guy, using two names, the events associated with those two names, still span a certain amount of time. You don't end up with a Xerxes/Artaxerxes, that only reigned for 41 years. You end up with one who reigned for 62 years, unless you can make described events just disappear.

Very good. Most people don't get this far. I wanted to find something that would absolute establish that Darius ruled for more than 6 years. You don't find that at Persepolis, which fits into the 6 years since he began to build there in his 4th year and barely finished one palace, the rest having to be completed by Xerxes with one building completed by "Artaxerxes", which simply represents a name change. So what else is there? The 3 years to qwell the civil war is less than six years and it was immediately after he begun to rule. His marriage and children were not related to when he began to rule! As you can see, Xerxes is a young man, 21 years of age by the 4th year of Darius as he would be depicted here at Persepolis! So Darius was already married to Atossa with grown children. Xerxes was not his eldest. So the children and when he actually got married is a separate issue.

But the building of the canal is interesting and the roads and at Susa. You need to be "specific" about that though. Could it have been done in just six years? As far as building "extensively" in Susa, you need a reference for that. To my knowledge, his greatest work was at Persepolis and he only finished one buliding there. What else did he build in all his alleged 36 years? Where are all the other cities? You say "extensively", that suggests lots of archaeological evidence of many works, noit just a few. But I don't know of any of them except for one palace there, that also only took 2 years. IF you have a REFERENCE for this "extensive" building let me know. Persepolis is the most that is left of Persian architecture to speak of. But that begs the question, with such passion for building, why is Persepolis basically all that we see of his work, that project needing to be finished by his son? You also say "extensively at Persepolis" and that's not true. He started several buildings there but could only barely finish his palace, the rest of the buildings were finished by Xerxes/Artaxerxes. So there certainly is no "extensive" building at Persepolis. And what, again, great monuments are left built by Darius other than Persepolis do we have to examine archaeologically and that would represent, especially with an aggressive builder such as Darius, 36 years of building? There isn't anything. But if you know of something specific other than Persepolis, which is a 2-year investment, then please post your reference.

As far as what he introduced in terms of the Daric and special script and all that, this is easily seen in connection with Behistun, which only talks about the first 2-3 years of his rule. Then nothing else. All those things could have been instituted at the very beginning of his rule. He was an aggressive king, focussed on building and improving Persia. For that kind of intensity, there should have been a lot more showing from his reign. All his campaigns could have occurred in just six years as well. There should have been more at the pace he was going, in my opinion. So to me, unless you have something more specific, the evidence is lacking. Further, who did Darius interact with during his long 36 year rule. He had problems in the beginning of his rule, then shows up for the battle of Marathon late in his rule, and that's it. What conflicts with Greece or anybody else transpired in that long period of time?

The reference are to events "before the Persian War and the death of Darius" and it makes reference to Darius as the son of Kambyses. Kambyses only ruled for 7-8 years, Darius allegedly 36 glorious years by now. Why is he referenced in connection with Kambyses when by now he would have had his own reputation. Further, if Marathon was connected to the same time as Darius' death, of course, mentioning this war and Darius' death together would be a natural.

Every single quote that Xerxes is the son of Artaxerxes is propanda. I already quoted where this came from, when Themistocles fled there. Thus it is not what propaganda the later historians bought or were forced to repeat, it's the inconsistencies at the pont where Xerxes begins to rule:

See? You're pretending all is well historically, when it isn't.

Hello. My only obligation is to be specific about the details of the "conspiracy" and that included that Xenophon edited Thucydides. That that was part of it. That was always part of it, I didn't just bring it up. The 50 years in Thucydides should be 20. He was redacted and Xenophon is the chief candidate for doing that. Out of all the historians there is only one whose work survive in toto. Thucydides! The most famous people coming out of this period are Plato, Aristotle and Thucydides, all involved in this cover up.

My claim that linking the Persian War with the death of Darius is not inappropriate, you're just looking for an exception. However, you ignore "The Delian Problem" which clearly dates Plato at least 20-25 years after the war began. So no matter what, you/we are going to have to dismiss one reference or another. My focus was to use ASTRONOMY and eclipses to specifically introduce fixed alternative dating and to harmonize the fixed dates back into the original timeline.

Accepting this chronology is always going to be a "jugdment call" no matter what. So that's fine. But at least you see what's here. All I know is that if you remove 56 years of Greek history and all the chronology back to Shishak likewise gets downdated that Shishak's invasion occurs exactly where RC14 confirms it. If you don't want to believe the Bible. Fine. The Bible says there are 70 years from the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st of Cyrus. Not the Babylonian records! Which do you believe? Josephus says the same thing: 70 years from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. Was he lying? Are the pagans always the truthful ones when it comes to anything the Jews or the Bible have to say? May be. But I know this, it is clear who Nehemiah is at Persepolis with Artaxerxes but that identification is not well published. Why? Because it is far too clear he's the same person with Darius, that's why. And the Bible shows that Nehemiah returned with Zerubbael and lived down into the reign of Darius II, making him a really old man, past 143 years of age for that to happen.

In the meantime, you're laughing at me but you have an eclipse that doesn't work in 431BCE and Plato consulting in a war 3 years before he was born. So whose laughing? :redface: :redface:

I enjoyed it too. Now don't forget you have to come up with specific "extensive" buildings by Darius at Parsa I haven't heard about yet. Thanks!


Peace, LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy47:
We're still laughing at you. And we'll continue to do so. You need to be writing for TV. Your history is about as valid as shows like "Hercules" and "Xenia."

1) The eclipse of 431 corresponds in time (of history of year and day) to the eclipse in Thucydides.

2) Since it is nearly total, it is quite possible that some stars appeared during that eclipse.

3) There is no evidence that Xenophon edited Thucydides. Find a single source from a classics scholar that backs you up.

4) The story of the Delian Problem is a story that stems from one source over two hundred years after the fact. It has no standing as a historic source.

5) Your allegation that Socrates and Aristotle were lovers is a joke. Your major proof is that the philosopher Aristotle frequently quoted the philosopher Socrates.

6) You allege that there is a secret, mysterious book that proves some of your allegations, especially that Socrates and Aristotle were getting it on. It's less real than Secret Mark.

RED DAVE