Larsguy47

Yes. Cyropaedia is what I had in mind. The "Education of Cyrus", Persian history preocupation.

Not really. Enlighten me. I know he conquered Babylon, Persia. I wasn't aware he conquered Greece. Solon's visit to Lydia is all I'm really aware of off the bat. Maybe you can be more specific. as opposed to Xerxes destroying Athens?

Sure. But that was way after Cyrus.

Yes, it's obvious to me the Persians paid him to revise Greek chronology as they always had, learned from the great master of propaganda himself, Themistocles who fooled the Greeks into think Xerxes had died and Artaxerxes was his son, when they were the same king. Care to explain that? You have two sets of historians swearing up and down that Themistocles went to Xerxes, not Artaxerxes:

Care to comment on THIS?

Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus say that Xerxes was dead, and that Themistocles had an interview with his son; but Ephorus, Dinon, Clitarchus, Heraclides, and many others, write that he came to Xerxes. (Plutarch, "Lives, Themistocles")

You're going to have to DECIDE. Oh, and tell me there were no revisionisms at this time.

Oh yeah, Cyropaedia (The Education of Cyrus) was really about Florida, I forgot.

THINK: Persians need Greek historian to spread Persian propaganda. Hire Xenophon and his friends Plato and Aristotle. Cyropaedia is off course for a Greek historian after his time. Sorry. The circumstance makes him "suspect" for being an agent of Persia. It's not what else he happened to do.

Actually, my impression is that likely very, very few have the background in this particular area and particularly astronomical texts and Biblical chronology options to follow this. But that's typical. When I tried to explain to the British Museum that the "mistakes" in the VAT4956 were not likely mistakes since they matched the same lunar cycle positions in 511BCE. They checked it out and came back with: 'There are over 50 absolute maches to 568BCE, so it is clear when the text should be dated...' Similar to what someone here said. I just LAUGHED! It went right over their head.

Then when I tried to post the SK400 astro details here, the thread was ended prematurely because the moderators thought there was no "new information." Again, hello? So truly, even though I have the right size tapestry to hang to cover the blank wall, I can't do it if there aren't any nails in the wall already.

I can say something like, "Oh, by the way the 763BCE should really be dated to MONTH 2..." and I get nothing. ZIPP! People don't understand how significant that is.

That's why, really, if I were that interested in updating the astronomy issues for this chronology, I would have to find a professor at some university who has expertise and background in ancient chronology and then explain everything to him/her, and then they can communicate the concepts in the "peer review journals" as a "theory" or update. Certainly the information about the predictability of solar eclipses need to be updated. In fact, since I discovered this it should be named after me (as they do when someone develops something, not that I care "The Larsguy47 Ancient Predictable Solar Eclipse Pattern" doesn't quite sound right. has a nice ring through!)

So thanks, Julian, for your comments. But you can't have someone consulted in 430 BCE on something if they weren't born until 428BCE. Trust me!



LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks for this information, but it's outdated since the VAT4956 double-dating was discovered. The corrected date for the fall of Babylon is 362 BCE (I hope you have a pen handy to write that down...)

Do I need to post the VAT4956 astrochart 511BCE references for you? Let me know.

LG47

spin

Responding to someone on my ignore list, you, Julian, wrote
It should be added that Xenophon had no reason to have anything to do with the Persian court. While he did partake in the attempt to seat Cyrus the Younger on the throne, when Cyrus was killed the Greek mercenaries had no reason to be in Persian territory and the Persians were happy to let them know their situation. Much of the Anabasis deals with the escape from the Persian empire and they were forced to follow a long and arduous route to escape, going over the Anatolian highlands down towards where Trebizonda would be built on the Black Sea.

The notion that Xenophon, after having survived that trek, would come out as doing anything for the Persian court is foolhardy to say the least.


spin

Sauron

On the contrary. The date that I provided is correct, and your excellent adventures in re-dating of history don't hold water.

No, but you could address the multiple errors in your revisions - the errors that have already pointed out to you, remember? Because until you do, poptart, your fantasy chronology is dead on arrival.

RED DAVE

From Larsguy:
Right. Give us one drop of evidence, that's evidence, not your bullshit, that these men ever worked for the Persians.

From Larsguy:
One more reference to the Delian problem. It's a legend. Give me one source that credits it with being history.

Tell you what. Why don't you enhance your credibility by revealing your secret book about Aristotle fucking Socrates (or vice versa).

Produce it. That's a challenge.

RED DAVE

3DJay

THINK: The Persian royal, Cyrus the younger, who he liked...killed. The Persian royal, who he fought against...on the throne.

Who the hell hired him? The guy he was trying to depose and kill? Or, the dead guy?


Sorry, your reasoning makes you suspect for being an agent of illogic.


Peace

Julian

Indeed. One would also wonder why there would be cooperation between the two in light of the fact that Xenophon tried to kill Artaxerxes II in the pinnacle battle (Cunaxa, 401BCE) that got Cyrus killed and led to the famous march.

Julian

Larsguy47

Obviously, you don't get it. Understand that once the presumption arises that Xenophon was a double-agent, then nothing in this work can be taken for face value, but is considered adaptive to the revised history. It's like someone on trial for murder and you have an eyewitness seeing him commit the crime. He is sent to jail and while in jail writes out a story of where he was at the time of the crime. Then he gives that to his lawyer who then takes it to court and demands a retrial saying, "See! His own words tell us where he was at the time of the murder. This proves he's innocent!" It doesn't happen that way.

The motive, though, like with Themistocles is one of the oldest motives in human history: MONEY! The chance to be rich. The Persians were drowning in wealth. So from the Persian Perspective, to maintain Persian propaganda of their history, they would have to find a Greek writer to reassert their own history and then coordinate that with Greek history, suppressing and eliminating the work of Thucydides which was the new problem, since this very popular work exposed contradictions in the Persian Propaganda New History.

So that's the PRESUMPTION/THEORY behind the Xenophon revisions. That he was paid handsomely to rehash the history of Cyrus and then tie that into a revised Greek history, removing the last 7 years of the history of Thucydides. Now that may have been simply buying up all the copies of this work and destroying the last seven years and then continuing his version of the history after that, which is what has come down to us.

To help them though, he'd need the cooperation of others, so he likely paid them off as well, those key co-conspirators being none other than PLATO and ARISTOTLE. Between the three of them, they reworked the history of the Peloponnesian War, the history Socrates, getting rid of his original writings and instead publishing his important dialogues for antiquity. This was done as best as possible but on close examination, of course, some loose ends appear and through those loose ends we are tipped off how to reconstruct the original chronology.

So the issue that per Xenophon's own story he wouldn't have been been a favorite of the Persians is irrelevant if he is under accusation of being paid by the Persians to make these revisions.

LG47

Julian

One book dealing with the life of one long-dead person, out of many that had nothing to do with Persia, does not make for 'Persian history preoccupation.' I know that your view helps your theory but you must learn to accept the facts: Xenophon wrote more than a dozen books, one was about him and his exploits (which happened to take place in Persia), and one was about the life of Cyrus the Great. The rest were about many other things, mostly Greek stuff. There is no 'preoccupation' on the part of Xenophon. On the part of LG47, however, preoccupation would seem a mild description...
Keep up. We are talking about Cyrus the Younger here. That would be the Cyrus applicable to Xenophon. Cyrus the Great was long dead by then. Cyrus the Younger supported Sparta during the Peloponnesian War.
Cyrus the Great was long dead by the time of Xenophon. Again, we are dealing here with Cyrus the Younger.
Okay, I have decided. I am going with modern history. you cannot support your assertation that the Persians paid Xenophon. It is also illogical not to mention untenable. Put up some evidence or stop embarrassing yourself.
The rest of the post is simply to insane for me to waste my time replying.

Julian

Julian

I consider that a boon in this case.
Insanity, insanity. A giant conspiracy theory without a shred of evidence, actually, in spite of the evidence. And I am the one not getting it...?!?

Julian