Is This A Lie?

[Guest mike344]

I just read some stuff concerning ancient history at a website, it's an on-line history book I guess. I think that I got a decent education, but I was never taught anything like that. Can anyone tell me if that stuff is true.

It's at http://www.realhistoryww.com

[Primus Pilus]

I read the 3 chapters on Etruria (since its related to Rome and therefore that which I have the most knowledge of). It's not necessarily a lie, but its woefully inadequate and mixed with some inaccuracies.

 

In browsing some other chapters there seems to be an agenda, but quite frankly I don't find it compelling enough to be interested.

[Princeps]

I can't find any of the Rome stuff, are you sure it's the correct link?

 

Oh, ok. From this one bit on Rome, I agree with Primus Pilus. In fact I'd go further, and say it's blatantly false.

 

Rome would continue to grow, and in time it would come to absorb the classical Greek civilization as well. Rome too, would establish a great civilization with many great kings. One king of particular note is Constantine (271-337 A.D.), though not the greatest of the Roman kings, Constantine would have to be considered the most influential - His conversion to Christianity, facilitated the creation of the largest religious institution the world has ever known - the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

 

The people of the Eurasian plains would not stop here, they continued their outward migration until they had populated all of Europe, the middle-east, India, and the Americas. Over time, great civilizations would spring-up in each place that they settled. In Europe it is assumed that they cross-bred with, and absorbed, the Cro-Magnon Humanoids who still existed there.

 

One great mystery of Europe is Stone Henge in Britain. Did the European Cro-Magnon evolve to the point where he could build monumental structures - that seems unlikely. Or did people from one of the original Mediterranean countries, or even Egypt build it?

[phil25]

There was, as I recall, a theory in the 1930s or before, that Stonehenge was built (or at least inspired and designed by) Mycenaean visitors. this was based on finding cup and dagger markings on the stones that seemed similar to those found in the Mycenaean world. I even have a fantasy novel based on the idea - and it was certainly told to me by my classics master at school in the Uk in the mid-60s.

 

Perhaps the writer had picked up that idea.

 

The chronology quoted (I have NOT read the link) seems VERY confused.

 

Is it possible the whole things is a horrible direct/literal translation from a foreign language? It's not usual, is it, in the English speaking world, to talk of "Roman kings" - except for the first seven up to 509BC? Certainly Roman kings here seems to be a substitution for Roman emperors.

 

Phil

[Neos Dionysos]

I just read some stuff concerning ancient history at a website, it's an on-line history book I guess. I think that I got a decent education, but I was never taught anything like that. Can anyone tell me if that stuff is true.

It's at http://www.realhistoryww.com

 

Major flaws... I took a look at the Ptolemaic Period of Egypt...

 

Ptolemy I (Soter I)

323-285 B.C.

Upon the death of Alexander the Great in 323 B.C, the throne of Egypt fell to Ptolemy I. He was a veteran soldier and trusted commander who had served Alexander. He started the Ptolemaic Dynasty, which lasted about 300 years. He ran Egypt like a business, strictly for profit.

 

Ptolemy II (Philadelphus)

282-246 B.C.

Ptolemy II Philadelphus, which means 'Brother/Sister-loving', was the second ruler of the Ptolemaic Dynasty. He was married to his full sister Arsinoe II. His greatest contribution to the world is that it was he, who desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.

 

Ptolemy wrote to the chief priest "Eleazar" in Jerusalem, and arranged for six translators from each of the twelve tribes of Israel to come to Alexandria. These translators were known as "The seventy-two" (altered in a few later versions to seventy or seventy-five). The reason for so many translators, was so that the many translations could be compared to each other for accuracy, (much of the material was in oral form).

 

The translators are said to have arrived in Egypt to Ptolemy's gracious hospitality, and translated the Pentateuch: [The first five books of the Hebrew Scriptures], believed by some to have been written by Moses. The work was completed in seventy-two days? Although opinions differ, most agree on 282 B.C, as the time of completion. Thus the SEPTUAGINT, {the original Bible}, derived from the Latin word for "seventy", was written. Of course, all of this is Very Controversial, and opinions do vary.

 

Cleopatra VII

 

In the springtime of 51 B.C, Ptolemy Auletes died, and left his kingdom to his eighteen year old daughter Cleopatra, and her younger brother Ptolemy XIII, who was twelve at the time. Cleopatra was born in 69 B.C, in Alexandria Egypt. She had two older sisters, Cleopatra VI and Berenice IV, as well as a younger sister, Arsinoe IV. There was two younger brothers as well, Ptolemy XIII and Ptolemy XIV. It is thought that Cleopatra VI may have died as a child, and that Auletes had his daughter Berenice beheaded.

 

Also upon Ptolemy Auletes death, "Pompey" a Roman leader, was left in charge of the children. During the two centuries that preceded Auletes death, the Greek Ptolemies had been allied with the Romans. Now the Ptolemies' strength was failing, and the Roman Empire was rising. City after city was falling to Roman power, and the Ptolemies could do nothing but create a pacts with them.

 

Over time, the Romans gained more and more control over Egypt. Tributes had to be paid to keep them away. When Ptolemy Auletes died, the fall of the Dynasty appears closer and closer. Thus begins the "well known" saga of Cleopatra, Cesar and Mark Antony. Which is good, because we have no room for the story here. However, it is a bit different than in the movies. In any event, the Romans are victorious.

 

Reading it one can say that the author if not has an agenda, at the very least has a very strong bais and is completely neglecting information which counters, or completely refutes some of thier claims. I would stay VERY far away from this site, and suggest that Wikipedia has much more information that is much more accuracte compared to this site.

[caldrail]

I can't find any of the Rome stuff, are you sure it's the correct link?

 

One great mystery of Europe is Stone Henge in Britain. Did the European Cro-Magnon evolve to the point where he could build monumental structures - that seems unlikely. Or did people from one of the original Mediterranean countries, or even Egypt build it?[/i]

 

Stonehenge is just one of a huge network of sites sacred to the neolithic europeans. I doubt myceneans had anything to do with it, nor does egypt deserve any credit. I live not far from Avebury. I can assure you there's no heiroglyphics there whatsoever

[Northern Neil]

I can't find any of the Rome stuff, are you sure it's the correct link?

 

One great mystery of Europe is Stone Henge in Britain. Did the European Cro-Magnon evolve to the point where he could build monumental structures - that seems unlikely. Or did people from one of the original Mediterranean countries, or even Egypt build it?[/i]

 

...Furthermore, humans who were modern in every way (people like us) were fully evolved by 150'000 BC. 'Cro - Magnon man' as a concept died out in the mid 20th century - it is now better regarded as one of the many prehistoric cultures of modern humanity. The author seems to be confused between evolution of cultures and evolution of mankind itself.

[Primus Pilus]

..Furthermore, humans who were modern in every way (people like us) were fully evolved by 150'000 BC. 'Cro - Magnon man' as a concept died out in the mid 20th century - it is now better regarded as one of the many prehistoric cultures of modern humanity. The author seems to be confused between evolution of cultures and evolution of mankind itself.

 

I didn't think that the term Cro Magnon went away as much as its been redefined?