The story

Rules to correctly write an ancient Roman date

Rules to correctly write an ancient Roman date

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

So the background is that I am working on some code to translate a Gregorian date to an Ancient Rome date. Upon Googling ancient roman dates I have the formula down pretty solid. However, I keep seeing different endings for months and special days (Kalends, Nones, Ides).

What is the correct set of rules for me to correctly determine the spelling of these days and months?

(ante diem|pridie) (lower case roman numeral?) (special day) (month) (year) (suffix [AD|AUC])

Just for an example, I've seen Kalends, Kalendas, Kalendis… I've also seen Ianuarius, Ianuariis, etc.

I found this source:

Not sure if it is always correct…

As per the comments, I went to Latin This Site and found my answer. I'll post here for googling purposes.

Making the Rules of War

All’s fair in love and war. In love, perhaps—in war almost never.

Despite the impression that fighting in our era of terrorism and guerrilla warfare is no-holds-barred, armed conflicts between sovereign states do have generally accepted rules both formal and informal. The notion that rules go out the window as soon as the shooting starts is exaggerated, though no set of rules, even if scrupulously observed, can change war’s basic violent nature.

Still, some wars are bloodier than others. Culture, political aims, social organization, economic means and technology shape the style of warfare in a particular epoch. Wars for honor, power, territory and natural resources can differ markedly from wars of religion or race in terms of ferocity and intensity. Humanitarian concerns and chivalry—the sense of fair play—interact with military necessity in shaping rules, although civil wars, revolts and conflicts with supposed “inferiors” can affect the rules’ application. Observance of rules could depend on one’s enemy, whether a neighbor sharing the same culture or a total stranger. Even the pre-state warfare of primitive peoples, despite incidents of massacre and annihilation, may have had ritualistic aspects with restraints on violence.

The Western military tradition has its origins in Greco-Roman antiquity, an age that already knew certain customary laws of war. Greeks and Romans equated international norms with natural law. The Latin terms for international law, jus gentium (“the law of nations”), and the law of war, jus belli, imply a fundamental universal law. Current headlines about war crimes, the right to prisoner of war status, and appropriate and inappropriate means of combat echo the concerns of ancient Greeks and Romans.

In the Middle Ages the tradition of Roman law combined with Christian interpretations of Greek thought and Scripture to produce a new sense of Western community—Christendom, headed by the pope. Rules of conduct for Christians, however, need not apply to relations with non-Christians. Later, during the Reformation and an age of religious wars, Dutch jurist Hugo Grotius tried in his foundational On the Law of War and Peace (1625) to isolate discussions of international law from concepts of both natural law and Catholic doctrine. This secularization of international law in Europe coincided with a new emphasis on treaties and conventions as sources for international norms. But then, in the 18th- and 19th-century era of colonial empires, a new dichotomy about the rules’ application appeared: civilized vs. uncivilized nations. Against the latter, the former’s rules could be bent or ignored. Only with the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 did such distinctions—officially at least—subside.

Modern laws of war embrace two aspects: the right to war (jus ad bellum) associated with a legitimate cause (i.e., a just war), and the rules of conduct in war (jus in bello), including prohibition of specific acts. Many of these rules reflect a long tradition, with perhaps the earliest written code appearing in the Old Testament. The Deuteronomic historians, active in the late 7th century BC, attributed to Moses a set of rules (in Deuteronomy, Chapter 20): A city under siege had to be offered the opportunity to surrender. If accepted, its inhabitants became the Israelites’ servants but if a battle was required, the Israelites were to slaughter all adult males, enslave the women and children, and take all property as booty. Destruction of fruit trees was specifically prohibited. Historians traditionally date the code’s purported historical context, the Israelite acquisition of Canaan, to the Late Bronze Age (c. 13th– 12th centuries BC). Such rules, however, applied only to distant populations. Conquered peoples within the Promised Land—Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites and others—were to be annihilated. As elsewhere in the ancient Near East, the acknowledged god(s) sanctioned war jus ad bellum was not a concern.

The Greeks established the Western tradition of laws of war. The Archaic period (750–490 BC) saw development of the “common laws of the Greeks,” unwritten but generally recognized rules for interstate relations, and some of those directly relate to war. Like the Roman use of jus, these rules reflect traditional practices, not legislation, and some probably long antedated the Archaic period. In 430 BC Pericles told the Athenians that violation of the unwritten laws was shameful, and his contemporary Protagoras postulated shame and justice as twin restraints on war’s violence. Among the Greek common laws:

  • War should be openly declared and have a legitimate cause if the gods’ favor was to be expected.
  • A pledged word must be kept. Oaths, sworn to the gods and accompanied by a sacrifice or libations, guaranteed treaties, truces and other agreements. Absence of an oath, or a flaw in administering one, nullified the agreement. Oath-breakers would incur the gods’ punishment.
  • Heralds were sacrosanct. Associated with Hermes, the messenger god, heralds often accompanied diplomatic missions, and their persons were inviolate, a privilege in Greek practice not always extended to ambassadors. Heralds announced the declaration of war on an opposing city or accompanied embassies to the enemy for negotiations. The significance of oaths and heralds is already clear in the earliest Greek literature, Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey.
  • Temples, with their treasuries, and other religious precincts were sacrosanct during hostilities, and violation of sacred property was akin to waging war on the gods. The stipulation in modern laws of war to protect “cultural property” is an ancient idea.
  • A general truce suspended hostilities during festivals at such Panhellenic centers as Olympia or Delphi.
  • Prisoners who surrendered on the battlefield received quarter, but the fate of the surrendered after a siege was at the victor’s discretion.
  • A truce had to be granted the defeated for recovery and burial of the dead.

These laws functioned within unwritten conventions of limited warfare between major city-states of the Greek mainland. As border disputes were then the most common cause of war, annihilation of the opposing army or capture of its city were not war aims. Wars, usually local affairs, reflected the short-term service of a city’s army, essentially a militia providing its own arms and equipment for combat as heavy infantry (hoplites) in a phalanx. Except for the Spartans, Greek hoplites received little or no formal training, and Greek cities lacked logistic capabilities for lengthy and distant campaigns. Hence these wars, affairs of the summer season, usually amounted to a single bloody clash of rival phalanges on an open plain. Battle could be provoked by invasion of the opponent’s territory and destruction of his crops. Often a formal challenge preceded combat. War and especially battle, however, were affairs of honor, requiring an open, face-to-face trial of strength. The ferocity of the actual fighting knew no restraints, but honor proscribed surprise attacks. Tactical maneuvers in battle were limited not only by honor but also by the inflexible character of the original hoplite phalanx and the lack of command and control after the initial disposition of forces. Commanders fought in the front ranks themselves and scarcely had an overview of the battle.

“Rules” for hoplite combat probably derived from an earlier period, when duels of champions decided border disputes. The memory of such duels survived in the Classical era (490–323 BC). Just as a formal duel specified boundaries for the action, so the plain of a hoplite battle marked its “lists.” Final possession of the battlefield determined the winner, and pursuit of the defeated beyond the immediate scene of action was discouraged. The loser conceded victory in requesting a truce to recover its dead. The Greek failure to develop concepts of strategy, techniques of siege-craft beyond starving a city with a blockade or even rudimentary reconnaissance in field operations reflects this system of limited warfare with a clear set of rules.

Yet these rules did not apply everywhere or under all circumstances. On the periphery of the Greek world, especially in colonial wars against non-Greeks, the rules need not be observed. Similarly, the conventions of formal field battles did not apply to raids and small-scale operations. More significant, the Greeks recognized a special category of war “without heralds” or “without truce,” that is, war without formal rules about restraints on behavior. Similarly, in civil wars no rules restrained behavior.

In the 5th century BC the Greeks’ conflicts with the Persians, who did not recognize the Greek “rules of the game,” and the creation of a maritime Athenian empire—which expanded Athens’ power far beyond that of a typical Greek polis—began to change the operational conventions of battles and campaigns. The culmination of that process came in the showdown of the Athenian empire with Sparta and its coalition in the Peloponnesian War (431–404 BC). While the laws of the Greeks remained unchanged, the increased ferocity and intensity of the struggle bent, broke or flouted operational niceties. Trickery and deception, never entirely absent before, clashed with concepts of honor, as war came to be conceived as a rational activity subject to human calculation. Belief in the gods’ role in the ultimate outcome remained, but apparently the gods also helped those who helped themselves.

If the Greco-Persian wars had heightened a sense of Greek self-awareness, a generation of slaughter and destruction in the Peloponnesian War aroused a notion of Panhellenism: Greek energies should be turned from fratricide between Greeks to defense against such barbarians as the Persians. Destruction of a Greek city, for example, came to be seen as a barbarian act. Fourth century BC intellectuals and historians, looking back across the bloody gulf of the Peloponnesian War, idealized the limited warfare of the Archaic period. A supposed oath taken by all member cities of the religious league administrating Apollo’s temple at Delphi stipulated that no member should destroy, starve or cut off from running water another member city, on penalty of its own destruction.

Similarly, the fervent Panhellenist historian Ephorus invented the story of a prohibition on missile weapons in a late 8th century BC war between the cities of Chalcis and Eretria—perhaps in reaction to the introduction of catapults, a mechanization of weaponry that threatened traditional notions of honor and heroism in combat. Even Plato in his Republic (c. 380 BC) devised a new Panhellenic set of rules for Greek warfare, prohibiting enslavement of Greek cities or decoration of temples with spoils from defeated Greek armies, and limiting destruction of territory to crops, while exempting lands and dwellings. In the same spirit Aristotle’s lost Just Acts of War (c. 334 BC, the earliest referenced monograph on just war) defended wars against barbarians, approved wars for self-defense and proposed means to settle border disputes.

Harsh realities, however, contrasted with such Panhellenic sentiments. The phrase “law of war” (nomos polemou) first appeared soon after the Peloponnesian War. It denoted the right of the victor to dispose of a defeated enemy and his property as he saw fit, thus asserting the loser had no rights. After a successful siege, execution of adult males and the enslavement of women and children became common practice, moderated only by a victor’s political expediency or generosity. This “right of the victor” is the most common meaning of the phrase “law of war,” when used in the singular, in both Greek and Latin sources.

Alexander the Great’s conquest of the Persian empire (334– 323 BC) opened a new cosmopolitan age with the incorporation of the Near East into the Greek world. The massive Macedonian empire fragmented after Alexander’s death into several military monarchies founded by his generals, whose legitimacy rested solely on the right of conquest. Despite bloody battles of now mainly mercenary forces, a sense of competition among Alexander’s successors tempered the destruction and enslavement of cities. Such acts could alienate the conquered, their new subjects, and damage property, now the victor’s own. After 280 BC, when competition yielded to an equilibrium of power among dynasties, the consequent intrigues, deceit and trickery in diplomacy and on the battlefield prompted the historian Polybius to bemoan the despicable conduct of Greek interstate relations.

In the broadened geographical horizon of the Hellenistic period, the old “laws of the Greeks” became the “laws of men.” Peripatetic philosophers, followers of Aristotle, wrote works on oaths, treaties and even military affairs. The new philosophical school of the Stoics—believers in a brotherhood of mankind and much concerned with ethics—discussed proper behavior in war. Cicero later incorporated Stoic views about war in his On Duties (44 BC). His work became an important source for early modern theorists of international law like Grotius. Likewise, later Roman-era historians, such as Livy and Plutarch, reflected Stoic views in writing (in the plural) of “laws of war.” In a famous example, the Roman general Marcus Furius Camillus, when besieging the town of Falerii in 394 BC, refused the local schoolteacher’s offer to surrender to the Romans the children in his charge as potential hostages to leverage the town’s surrender. Such treachery repulsed Camillus, who evidently believed human society must incorporate laws of war that dictated honor and proper behavior. Impressed by Camillus’ rejection of a traitor’s offer, the town voluntarily surrendered.

In assessing diplomatic and military behavior of the late 3rd and 2nd centuries BC, Polybius provided the most detailed discussions of laws of war: keeping oaths good faith in both treaties and truces the necessity of a declaration of war the inviolability of ambassadors sparing prisoners taken on the battlefield the immunity of religious sanctuaries and their treasuries and limiting destruction or capture to such elements that support the opponent’s war effort, such as forts, harbors, cities, men, ships and crops—but sparing noncombatants or items of long-term value like fruit trees. He also invoked issues of honor, regarding ambushes, nocturnal attacks and feigned retreats as shameful. For the rationalist Polybius, observance of these rules depended upon a state’s expediency and wise policy.

Rome’s rise to prominence brought its own version of laws of war that, like the Roman constitution, remained unwritten. Some coincided with Greek practice, while others reflected Rome’s legalistic tendencies. Its armies scrupulously observed the inviolability of ambassadors and sanctuaries, unless an enemy’s cults were seen as potential inspiration for later revolt. Above all, Romans prided themselves as people of good faith (bona fides) who always kept their word.

Just war (bellum justum), the doctrine most associated with Rome, underwent considerable interpretation in later periods by Saints Augustine (354–430) and Thomas Aquinas (1225–74) and others. According to Roman tradition, a priesthood, the fetiales, oversaw the proper procedures for declaring war—procedures initially applied only to local conflicts. War could be properly declared only after another state had declined a Roman demand to correct a grievance. Refusal gave Rome a just cause for war. The meaning of justum remained ambiguous: whether “just” from an ethical and moral perspective, or “just” in the sense that appropriate procedures were followed. Roman expansion outside Italy rendered the fetial procedure cumbersome, and it eventually vanished. To the stricter sense of law of war—the right of the victor—Romans added their own wrinkle: the “battering ram rule.” During a siege Rome would accept surrender under favorable terms only before a battering ram first struck the city’s walls. Thereafter little or no quarter could be expected.

The concept of hostis justus—a regular, legally defined enemy—emerged as a lasting contribution to the Western tradition of laws of war, and it clearly remains important today. Bandits, pirates and rebels were not regular enemies, so rules of proper warfare did not apply to them. Barbarians largely fell outside the status of regular enemies, although by the 3rd century Germans and the Iranian Parthians had achieved that status. The idea of a hostis justus survives in current controversies over the right of terrorists and guerrillas to prisoner of war status.

Enforcement of rules of war, not surprisingly, has always been problematic. Great powers can flout rules with impunity. Among the ancients, punishment for violations lay with the gods, the victor’s discretion or the court of public opinion. Then, as now, a nation risked both its reputation and continued influence in the international community for alleged war crimes. Ancient punishments for war crimes are a matter of record: In 405 BC, after the Spartan coalition defeated the Athenian fleet at Aegospotami, the Spartans executed several thousand prisoners, including Philocles, an Athenian general who in a previous engagement had ordered the captured crews of two Spartan triremes thrown overboard he subsequently initiated a decree that thereafter prisoners of the Spartan coalition would have their right hands cut off. Later, around 240 BC, a general of the Achaean League, Aratus of Sicyon, was tried in absentia and fined for his surprise attack on the city of Argos in a bid to oust a tyrant—though no evidence exists he ever paid the fine.

Even the Romans were sensitive to what would now be viewed as war crimes. The Roman senator Cato the Younger wanted Julius Caesar surrendered to the Germans for his violation of a truce leading to a massacre, a preliminary to his 55 BC crossing of the Rhine. The historian Sallust had to defend Roman general Gaius Marius against the appearance of a war crime. In 107 BC he had captured by surprise attack the Numidian city of Capsa. Despite the town’s surrender, Marius burned it and massacred or enslaved its inhabitants, citing the city’s strategic importance and the population’s untrustworthiness. An argument from “military necessity” also appears at the siege of Jerusalem in AD 70. Titus, the Roman commander and later emperor, held a council of war to decide the fate of the Jewish Temple. Some urged its destruction under the law of war: As a potential rallying point for the rebels, it had to be demolished. Others thought it should be saved unless used for military purposes. The latter view corresponds to modern practice on destruction of cultural property.

As unwritten customs, the ancient laws of war were open for dispute or even sometimes invented as a pretext. Under the common laws of the Greeks, the legality of consulting an oracle about a war between Greeks was disputed, as was the legality of economic warfare. Striking, too, is the appeal to different laws by opposing sides: After the 424 BC Battle of Delium the victorious Boeotians refused to grant a truce for return of the Athenian dead, since the Athenians had occupied and fortified the nearby sanctuary of Apollo, which included a sacred spring. The Athenians replied that they held the sanctuary by right of conquest and used the spring through military necessity, an act pardonable by the gods. Such appeals to military necessity as an excuse for violation of laws of war have an all-too-familiar modern ring.

Laws of war are intended to structure and restrain war’s violence and to introduce humanitarian considerations. The Greeks and Romans initiated this practice in the Western military tradition. They set the parameters within which “the game” was to be played and provided many precedents for later developments. Laws, however, are subject to not only enforcement or application but also interpretation. How wars are actually conducted in all ages, whether “fairly” or not, has a history all its own.

Author-historian Everett Wheeler is the scholar in residence in the Department of Classical Studies at Duke University. For further reading he recommends his own Stratagem and the Vocabulary of Military Trickery his section on “Ruses and Stratagems” in Vol. 5 of The International Military and Defense Encyclopedia and David J. Bederman’s International Law in Antiquity.

Originally published in the July 2013 issue of Military History. To subscribe, click here.

How were dates written in Ancient Rome?

Say there was to be a gladiator fight on the 16 th of July in 100 AD and some slave would want to create some hype for this.

How would he write down the date? In roman numerals, but would the format be DDMMYYYY or MMDDYYYY or something completly different? Did they distinguish between AD and BC? How? Did they use a different calendar and how would that impact this? Is it even possible to convert modern dates to ones that would be understood by Ancient Romans?

The roman calendar used three reference dates (Kalends, Nones, and Ides) and referred to dates by counting backwards from the next reference date. The Kalends were the first of the month, the Nones were the 5th or 7th, and the Ides were the 13th or 15th.

On the first of the month, youɽ say it was the Kalends, then the next day would be the "fourth day before the Nones" and so on until you reached the Nones, then "so many days before the Ides", then the Ides, and finally "So many days before the Kalends" until the month rolls around. In latin, these dates would be expressed as "Ante Diem III Nones November" (three days before the nones of november, or November 2nd) and the common short hand writing was ad III non. Nov.

The dates for the Nones and Ides moved depending on the length of the month, which were 29 or 31 days long. Short months had the Nones on the 5th and the Ides on the 13th, while long months used the 7th and 15th. Well, there was also February, which had 28 days. It used the same naming convention as short months.

Today's date would be twelve days before the Kalends of November October. (Thanks to SiliconGuy for the correction) or ad XII Kal. Oct. July 16th would be 15 days before the Kalends of Sextilis. (August)

Years were a little less set in stone. During the republic, years were named after the consuls, who served one year terms later the convention of counting from the founding of the city was used. So AD 100 would be the 853 year since the founding of the city, ab urbe condita, abbreviated AUC.

How Do You Number Volumes and Issues in Newsletters?

To number the volumes and issues of a newsletter, use volumes to refer to the year it was published, and use issues to refer to the number issued that year. Include the date.

Use the volume numbers to indicate the year the newsletter was published. The first year of newsletters would be volume one. In the second year the newsletters are published, list the newsletters as volume two, and so on. Volume is abbreviated "Vol." You may use regular digits or Roman numerals for the volume number.

Use the issue number for the number of times the newsletter has been published that year. For example, if it is a weekly newsletter, the issues would be numbered one through 52. The first one would be issue number one, the second issue number two, and so on.

Include the date the newsletter is published. If the newsletter is weekly, write the month, day and year. If it is monthly, write the month and the year. If it is published quarterly, write the season and year. For example, the third issue of a monthly newsletter in its fourth year would be written Vol. 4, No. 3, March 2014.

Etruscan Influence and the Latin Alphabet

The Etruscans, if you remember, were the Roman’s larger and more powerful northern neighbors. They spoke their own language. It did not belong to the Indo-European language family like the Italic languages. In fact, Etruscan is not related to any other known language, dead or alive!

The Romans were mostly farmers, so they had much to gain from the more advanced Etruscans. From an early point, the two peoples developed a close relationship and traded a great deal. Not only did the Romans borrow the alphabet from the Etruscans, but they also acquired a few new vocabulary words, like persona (person) and fenestra (window).

These vocabulary words indicate other things the Romans gained from their relationship with the Etruscans — like new technology! As we’ve mentioned, the Romans originally slept in huts without windows. From the Etruscans, the Romans learned how to build houses with fenestrae — windows.

The Etruscan word persona originally meant a theatrical mask. The mask depicted the role, or “person,” the actor was playing. This suggests that the Etruscans also introduced the Romans to theater, which would become a major part of Roman culture.

The former Etruscan walled town of Civitata di Bagnoregio. By Etnoy (Jonathan Fors) – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0.

Today, this alphabet is known as the Roman alphabet, even though the Romans did not invent it. However, because of the influence of Latin, this alphabet has been inherited by all western European languages — including English.

The Romans of Latium adopted the Etruscan alphabet as well as their technology and culture. But you won’t meet any Etruscans nowadays, no matter how hard you search through Italy. What happened?

Is Ancient History Completely Made Up By 'The Man'?

Assume a notable story on a notable day in history—the lunar landing, say—was fabricated. Now assume that 400,000 to 2 million such days were concocted. You begin to get a sense of the scope of New Chronology, the "empirico-statistical" theory that much of human history is a fiction assembled to serve the powerful.

Can you recall your middle-school social studies lessons? How, at some willowy point in your 11th or 12th year, you learned that recorded history begins with the appearance of writing? There were the Mesopotamians with their cuneiform scripts the Egyptians' hieroglyphs and demotic scrawls and later, the Greeks and Romans, whose societies form the backbone, for better or worse, of our own—if only because they kept such meticulous records.

We have all sought and found these connections to our past—in museums, in books, in the ground. This is our inheritance. And it is ingrained in us so early, so matter-of-factly, that it permeates most of our existences without demanding critical reflection.

Anatoly Timofeyevich Fomenko would like to blow your mind now, please. He will be assisted by chess grandmaster Garry Kasparov, as well as Sir Isaac Newton.

Since 1980, Fomenko, mathematician at Moscow State University and full member of Russia's prestigious Academy of Sciences, has been the leading proponent of a radical revision of human history—"an improved version of the global chronology of the Ancient Time," as he and collaborator Gleb Nosovsky put it—based on statistical and astronomical analyses.

Fomenko believes there is no reliable written record of human events before the 11th century. Most of our knowledge of earlier cultures is based on texts or copies of texts that date from after that era. From that point on, chroniclers—primarily learned religious scholars—used supposition and arbitrary consensus to fix the dates of key events in history. In doing so, they grafted recent occurrences onto earlier dates—sometimes unwittingly, sometimes perniciously—thus creating numerous "historical duplicates." History appears to repeat itself, Fomenko suggests, because it is thoroughly plagiarized.

In his chronology, the events of the New Testament precede those of the Old Testament—and in any case, most of the stories are concocted to reflect later incidents. Joan of Arc was a model for the biblical character Deborah. Jesus Christ was crucified in Constantinople in 1086. Ancient Egypt, Rome, and Greece were fashioned by Renaissance writers and artists (the time of the Pharoahs, Fomenko suggests, may have lasted into the 1700s). Aristotle instructed Alexander the Great, who was a tsar, in Moscow in the 1400s. Early English history—from the accepted names and dates to the apocryphal legends of a post-Roman King Arthur—is actually a carbon copy of Fourth Century Byzantium, which is itself a fiction based on late Medieval events.

Speaking of carbon, don't bother relying on carbon dating or other "scientific" chronological methods, Fomenko says: They are premised on the "old" dating system, and hence thoroughly corrupted.

This version of events is substantiated by hard facts and logic – validated by new astronomical research and statistical analysis of ancient sources – to a greater extent than everything you may have read and heard about history before.

In short, he argues, we are Baudrillardian copies without an original. We are in a matrix with Medieval rules. These rules are explained in a seven-volume corpus by Fomenko that opens with Orwell's famous saw from 1984: "Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past." The late Russian social critic Alexander Zinoviev provided the foreword to this master work: "The entire history of humanity up until the XVII century is a forgery of global proportions," he wrote, "a falsification as deliberate as it is universal."

It sounds insane, and it is derided by most modern scholars as "pseudohistory." But in fact, New Chronology has a rich history of its own, with roots in the Scientific Revolution and Enlightenment—in the sincere conviction that what is real is what's demonstrable. It just so happens that much of humanity's recollection of history is shakily reconstructed and not so easily demonstrated.

Orwell's old cliché about control of the past may come as a shock to young first-time readers of 1984, but to chronologists, it's old hat. Historical chronology, wrote the German historian Dietrich Hermann Hegewisch in 1854, is necessary "to furnish a principle of order. and to promote the orderly arrangements of social life." The murkiness of humanity's timeline is an age-old problem absent a solution, society itself cannot function. Entire religious schisms turn on how church fathers set the dates for certain biblical events. This stuff is important.

But until science became—well, a science—a certain imprecision was baked into the effort. Ancient cultures could observe the passage of time through astronomy, tracking the movements of the sun, the moon, and the stars but how they affixed these events on a timeline varied wildly. Even within a single culture, political and religious upheavals brought new timelines. Within two millennia (according to the "old" history, the one Fomenko challenges), citizens of Rome recognized three different calendars: the Roman, the Julian, and the Gregorian. The more time passes, the more necessary it becomes for a chronicler to reconcile all of these disparities, Hegewisch said:

Small wonder, then, that the advent of the scientific method and telescopic astronomy—along with advances in mathematics—spurred some of the earliest serious attempts to make sense of history on an all-encompassing timeline that wasn't based on religious dogma. Sir Isaac Newton seemed singularly qualified for this task, having applied his talent for mathematical reasoning to celestial physics. Newton's contribution, The Chronology of Ancient Kingdoms, first appeared in print after his death, in 1728. It argued—sometimes haughtily—that the currently accepted timeline of ancient history was wildly inaccurate in places:

Here YOUR MAJESTY will see Astronomy, and a just Observation on the course of Nature, assisting other parts of Learning to illustrate Antiquity and a Penetration and Sagacity peculiar to the great Author, dispelling that Mist, with which Fable and Error had darkened it.

"Chronologers have sometimes doubled the persons of men," Newton argued, "and by such corruptions they have exceedingly perplexed Ancient History." The Greeks mixed goddess Io with the Egyptian goddess Isis the Romans lost most of their chronicles to fires set by the Gauls the Persian timeline of rulers made no sense and how could the great Egyptian city of Memphis have existed before Homer's day, if Homer never mentioned it? As a result, Newton's own countrymen were adrift, uncertain of their own location in human history: "The Europeans, had no Chronology before the times of the Persian Empire: and whatsoever Chronology they now have of ancienter times, hath been framed since, by reasoning and conjecture."

Newton's chronology moved the English a little closer to antiquity. Events in ancient Greece, he argued, were about 300 years newer than the conventional wisdom held. Egypt's empire was moved forward in time as much as 1,800 years. And so on for most of the ancient civilizations. "And whilst all these nations have magnified their Antiquities so exceedingly," the great mathematician concluded, "we need not wonder that the Greeks and Latines have made their first Kings a little older than the truth."

Critics were unimpressed. One argued that the author had "gone senile in his old age" another shrugged that Newton "failed to come up with correct judgments in everything excepting mathematics." But the father of gravitational laws was downright subtle when compared with another chronologist who lived around the same time, the French scholar Jean Hardouin.

The son of a bookseller, Hardouin became a Jesuit teacher and librarian who grew interested in dating the classical texts he collected and translated. Hardouin's conclusion—what one later critic called a "literary hallucination"—was that, except for a few works of Cicero, Virgil and some others, all the Greek and Roman texts of "antiquity" were spurious fabrications cooked up by "certain monks of the thirteenth century." Even the Greek translation of the Bible itself was suspect to Hardouin—an assertion scandalous enough that his Jesuit superiors forced him to publicly recant his research in 1708. But he posthumously published several more texts expanding on his theory that Medieval Benedictine monks had basically created classical Rome and Greece and even fabricated all ancient coins:

Why? According to his biography in a 1715 text titled The Charlatanry of the Learned, Hardouin "only declared, elliptically, that when he died the reason would be found written on a piece of paper the size of his hand. The reason, unfortunately, was never found."

By the end of the 19th century, chronological science was lousy with iconoclasts eager to slay long-held shibboleths. Most notable among these was the British historian Edwin Johnson, who undertook a lifelong study of Christian chronology and found it all to be bunk:

St. Paul, the early church fathers, and even the gospels themselves were all concocted in the 1500s by Benedictine monks. Christ and the apostles were wholesale fictions, as was "all English history before the end of the fifteenth century." And, as one of his chapter titles put it, "An Imaginary Period Has Been Created and Called the 'Middle Ages'": The whole era from 700 to about 1400 never actually happened.

A snarky New York Times critic, reviewing one of Johnson's texts in 1904, after the author's death, noted that Johnson was widely accused of having "Benedictines on the brain":

That system, as he explains it, is of a band of "dishonest fabulists organized and disciplined in the use of the pen," "taught to agree upon a dogma and a fable." From their hands came the whole of our Christian literature, the whole of our history, arranged to suit their purposes.

The critic noted that Johnson had, in earlier times, been a Congregationalist minister. and had also translated a key anti-historical text "by Father Hardouin."

On the surface, at least, Fomenko's theory has advantages over earlier chronologists'. He uses statistical analysis to correlate old texts and timelines, seeking convergences and similarities that have escaped the notice of others. He harmonizes an abundance of celestial data and finds that astronomical events attributed to antiquity seems to correspond to more recent recorded occurrences.

Except that his data aren't all that harmonious. Take his reliance on early astronomical data: When there's a conflict between Ptolemy's recording of a celestial event and the existing historical record, Fomenko doesn't assume Ptolemy got it wrong he simply concludes Ptolemy lived 700 years later than historians believe. To make his smooth charts correlate earlier and later epochs in history, he has to be selective in picking his data points is there an unpleasant hump in this curve? Maybe those two kings were really one king. See how nicely that flattens things out?

Take, for example, Fomenko's assertion that Jesus and Pope Gregory VII were really the same person, duplicated into the historical record about 100 years apart—with Christ living in the Middle Ages. To make his case, Fomenko spends an entire chapter correlating the astronomical record with events described in the gospels. Yet he never addresses the glaring differences in the two men's biographies—like how Christ was executed in his thirties, while Pope Gregory died of old age while in exile in his sixties.

There's also his thing about how the whole of humanity before the Renaissance was basically dominated by Mother Russia.

Indeed, one need only look at his seven-volume master work to see that he's preoccupied with history having Russian underpinnings early Rome, Jerusalem and London were really phantoms of Byzantium, the seat of a huge Turko-Russian empire that was misinterpreted as a series of ancient Western civilizations. The infamous Tatar Yoke—the conquest of Russia by Mongols in the 1200s, which Russians talk about like it just happened yesterday, a traumatic event that they believe prevented them from permanent worldwide cultural domination—never really happened, Fomenko says, because the Mongols were themselves Russians.

For a people left adrift by the failure of Soviet communism—a people predisposed to conspiracy theories, haunted by notions of past greatness and territorial dominance, who have placed their faith again in a strong nationalist president—the appeal of Fomenko's revisionist timeline is obvious. One critic calls Fomenko's scholarship "a symptomatic example" of the Russian's "need to construct a new collective identity in the Soviet aftermath (profited by the Russian government to prompt a new form of patriotism)." The problem, says another critic, extends far beyond New Chronology:

Fomenko is telling an old story about Russia in a slightly new way at a time when Russia is struggling to make the transition from empire to nation-state. He is the inspiration behind an underground war waged by self-styled "modern" historians whose task is to recover a usable past for the post-Communist world.

Ironically, no one has done more to popularize Fomenko's work than a hardened opponent of Russian President Vladimir Putin: The famous world chess champion Garry Kasparov.

In a 2003 online essay, Mathematics of the Past (available now only in archived form), Kasparov says that as far back as childhood—the fount of all great ideas, obviously!—he "began to feel that there was something wrong with the dates of antiquity." Kasparov proceeds to recount how, reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, he found countless contradictions: How could ancient Romans accomplish so much without good maps? If humans were growing in stature over time, how were ancient soldiers so much stronger and larger than those of Gibbon's day? And how could they have achieved such advances in math and architecture using only Roman numerals?

Fortunately, Kasparov found an answer, like manna from heaven:

About five years ago, I came across several books written by two mathematicians from Moscow State University: academician A.T. Fomenko and G.V. Nosovskij. The books described the work of a group of professional mathematicians, led by Fomenko, who had considered the issues of ancient and medieval chronology for more than 20 years with fascinating results. Using modern mathematical and statistical methods, as well as precise astronomical computations, they discovered that ancient history was artificially extended by more than 1,000 years. For reasons beyond my understanding, historians are still ignoring their work.

The reasons aren't that difficult to understand, as one critic's side-by-side fisking of the Kasparov essay shows. But they haven't stopped Kasparov from collaborating with the New Chronologists—writing an introduction to one of their books, and gifting them a set of the Encyclopedia Britannica from 1771, "where we found a large number of valuable and interesting materials confirming and extending the conclusions that we had reached," Fomenko writes.

Asked in a 2001 interview what was the true history of the world, Kasparov replied:

I'm not trying to give any definite answer. What I'm trying to prove is that we have enough gaps, enough discrepancies, enough simple falsifications to conclude that probably this history was an invention of a later time.

Here is the fundamental seductiveness of the conspiracy theory—any conspiracy theory. It is, ironically, a product of our modern, enlightened, post-superstition approach to knowledge. It's grounded in the notion that reason and logic—even truth—are out there somewhere, accessible to any mind that's smart enough and dispassionate enough. It appeals to libertarians, to Real Men of Genius who refuse to acquiesce to the consensus of other men without seeing their work. It is a reasonable, self-confident skepticism that easily deteriorates into hubris: Hey, we're just asking questions here. He who controls the past controls the present. Who controls the past. Open your eyes, sheeple.

To such men, it never occurs that their critiques could be conditioned or motivated or manipulated, too.

Ouch! 8 of the most brutal execution methods from the ancient world

As the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. What about skinning a human? It turns out that in the ancient world there were quite a few ways to execute condemned men and women (skinning being one of them). Here we look at 8 of the most macabre methods for dispatching people in antiquity.

1. The Brazen Bull

Arguably the most famous figure of Ancient Greece is the Athenian Socrates (470-399 BC), executed in old age by being commanded to drink hemlock. This method of indirect execution was typical of the capital punishment dished out to Athenian citizens. They could be banished into a wilderness to die of exposure or thrown into a chasm to die of their injuries. (Although slaves tended to be beaten to death with clubs).

Read more about: Medieval History

Execution in the Middle Ages

One Greek ruler is alleged to have used something far more sinister, however. In the sixth century BC, Phalaris, the tyrant of Akragas in Sicily, was presented with a device made by the Attic sculptor Perillos. This was known as ‘the brazen bull’. Made entirely of bronze and the size of a real bull, the condemned was placed inside the hollow bull via a small door at the back. A great fire would be lit underneath, and the unfortunate fellow inside would be slowly roasted alive. The brazen bull had a system of pipes inside which converted the screams of the burning victim into ‘mooing’ from the bull’s mouth.

Even the notoriously cruel tyrant Phalaris was shocked by the device and thought it appropriate to test the bull by throwing its inventor inside.

Phalaris also allegedly met his own end in the bronze barbie.

2. Death by molten metal

In Ancient Israel, Mosaic law defined 36 crimes as punishable by death. Those guilty of incest and adultery with the married daughter of a member of the priesthood were executed by burning – but not by being burnt from the outside.

Read more about: Medieval History

Torture in the Middle Ages

First, the guilty individual would be strangled with a rope by two witnesses integral to the case. It was a soft rope as it was considered humane not to cause additional suffering with coarse material. When the strangulation caused the condemned to gasp for air, molten lead was poured down his throat.

3. Poena Cullei

Today, ‘getting the sack’ means you are expecting your P45, but two thousand years ago in Ancient Rome talk of getting ‘the sack’ might have meant the grisly capital punishment poena cullei (‘penalty of the sack’).

Read more about: Medieval History

8 Famous Botched Executions

The punishment consisted of the accursed individual being flogged or beaten before being sewn into a large sack and thrown into the river or the sea. But they would not be alone in the sack. With them might be a snake, a chicken, an ape, and a dog.

4. Flaying

Flaying involves removing the skin of the victim, usually by making incisions with a knife to the legs, buttocks, and torso, and then removing the skin as intact as possible. Flaying a person alive has been employed as a method of execution in different parts of the world for many centuries, including in Ancient Rome, medieval England, and the Ottoman Empire.

Read more about: Tudor History

The killer king: How many people did Henry VIII execute?

The kings of the Assyrian Empire of 911-609 BC were fond of flaying their enemies, especially rebel leaders. The practice was evidently a source of pride for the empire, representing the subjugation of an enemy. The Rassam cylinder is a contemporary record of 7th-century BC king Ashurbanipal’s military deeds. In one section it says:

‘Their corpses they hung on stakes, they stripped off their skins and covered the city wall with them.’

5. The Waist Chop

Li Si (280-208 BC) was a leading figure of early Imperial China. A writer, politician, and philosopher, he eventually got on the wrong side of powerful political aide Zhao Gao (d. 207 BC), who had him executed according to the ancient ‘Five Pains’.

Read more about: Mysteries

Did the Ancient Chinese visit the Grand Canyon?

First Li Si’s nose was cut off, then his foot, then his hand, then he was emasculated (his penis and testicles were removed), then finally he was cut in half at the waist. Gao also had Li Si’s entire extended family executed, to the third degree, in line with the ancient Chinese practice of ‘collective prosecution’.

The ‘waist chop’ involved an executioner using a very large, bladed instrument to slice the wretched prisoner into two at the waist, missing the vital organs and so causing a slow, painful death.

The ‘waist chop’ was not formally abolished in China until the 18th century.

Read more about: Medieval History

9 wacky medieval war machines

6. An eye for an eye

In the time of the First Babylonian Empire (c. 1894 BC – c. 1595 BC) in modern-day Iraq, the emphasis was on balance. The principle of talio – the law of retaliation - was central.

If you knocked someone’s teeth out, your teeth would be knocked out. Perjurers would lose their tongues and rapists castrated. It did not apply equally to everyone, though. A free man assaulting or even murdering a slave would normally only be fined.

Read more about: Knights Templar

Templar Rules, Templar Punishments

This style of punishment extended to the death penalty, too. Someone caught looting a housefire would be executed there and then by being thrown into the burning building! Burglars too would be hanged at the place they had burgled.

Negligence could also be punishable by death. Builders were put to death if one of their constructions collapsed and killed someone. The inequality of slaves before the law was evidenced here too. Line 218 of the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi specifies that if a surgeon kills a slave through malpractice, he need only ‘restore’, i.e., replace, the slave.

7. Crucifixion

Ancient Rome was a brutal place, and justice was class-based. If for example, you were a slave on trial, only evidence obtained under torture could be accepted by the court, and the torture was often undertaken in court too!

Crucifixion was normally reserved for slaves and humiliores (second-class Roman citizens), though there were cases of upper-class Romans being crucified.

Read more about: Religion

The lost years of Jesus: The mystery of Christ's missing 18 years

The hapless crucifixee typically would be stripped naked, then scourged and beaten and then forced to carry a large wooden cross to his place of execution.

They would next be nailed on to the cross through the hands and feet. Soldiers or bystanders would stab, beat, or humiliate the victim.

Being crucified upside down was considered a mercy as death arrived sooner. The actual cause of death varied case by case. It could be anything from septic shock from the open wounds or - when the prisoner grew exhausted and could no longer support their weight and breathe properly - asphyxiation.

All of this would be done in as public a fashion as possible.

Crucifixion was abolished throughout the Roman Empire in 337.

8. The Boats

Mithridates (d. 401 BC) was a soldier who lived and fought during the First Persian (Achaemenid) Empire. Mithridates, drunk at a royal banquet, betrayed the confidence of King Artaxerxes II. The king, embarrassed and infuriated, ordered the most infamous punishment of the ancient world – scaphism, or ‘the boats’.

According to Plutarch (46-119), writing hundreds of years later, the punishment began with the condemned being taken to a body of water and placed inside a boat. Another identical boat was then sealed on top of it to make a sort of shell, with the man’s arms, legs, and head sticking out of the sides.

He would then be force-fed honey and milk, covering his face and arms and legs with it too. After a time in the direct sun, his face and limbs would become completely covered with flies. Suffering diarrhoea in the boat, vermin would feed on the excrement and then also start to enter the man’s body and feed on that and devour him inside and out.

Mithridates apparently lasted 17 days in ‘the boats’ before dying.

A savage and merciless use of the death penalty was continued not just throughout antiquity and the middle ages but into the modern era too. The ‘Bloody Code’ system enacted in England in 1723 made over 200 offences punishable death, including damaging a fishpond, cutting down an ornamental shrub, and having a sooty face on a road at night. France last guillotined someone in 1977.

Today, the death penalty is retained by 56 countries of the world, though only 18 countries carried out executions in 2020.

The True Context Of Ancient History

This paper is about the Gordian Emperors Gordian I, Gordian II, and Gordian III. However, it is also about much, much more. It is about their ancestors and their royal relatives, as well as statistical data and how they were related to a group of ancient authors known as the Philostratii. [I]

I, and a few other researchers have discovered something which had never been considered within academia before, but which is now of extreme importance and must be considered because of what it means to research itself. Basically, what we have discovered is that there is an alternate version of history that exists, but that has not been known except to those few who did not want others to know.

That other version of history changes the context in which we must now view it. And that is because what we contend, due to what has been discovered, means that only royalty had the privilege of writing anything for publication (under penalty of death) no matter what the subject matter. Most of us now know of at least some examples where history (or those recording history) had lied or deliberately misled us. And, we also now know of several examples of what we term “whitewashed” history. [II]

Some of us have long wondered, how it was that there were so many people (i.e., the masses or non-royals) within such a great empire, who were illiterate. And yet, somehow, there were some people who lived an entirely different life within that empire than the majority did, people who had received a fantastic education, and who demonstrated great genius within their writings. And this, our discovery of the true nature of ancient history, gives us that answer.

That means that everything from poetry, to history and religious texts, were all authored by royalty. And, it also means that these royals worked in concert with each other as they had the same vested interests, and/or were closely related, or had the same common ancestry. Our findings indicate that all of the Roman Emperors from Antonius Pius on, were descended from one individual whose name was Arrius Calpurnius Piso, or his close royal relatives (See links to other papers that demonstrate this). [III]

Knowing this, as well as several other things, means that it is necessary for us to begin to view and examine ancient history and ancient texts in a much different way. It means using new methodology. Which is why I established what is called ‘The New Classical Scholarship’ (NCS). What we have found is that it is necessary to research history in another context in order to understand it correctly and to reach the correct conclusions (see my paper on the discoveries made by The New Classical Scholarship). [IV]

What we discovered is this, a royal oligarchy was in control of all that was written and that this oligarchy had been ruling through its various branches for thousands of years. It went through some changes at various points, but it nonetheless retained its power over most of the known world for those many years, and their descendants are still in many powerful positions in our world today (see my paper, ‘Oligarchy & Ancient Genealogies’). [V]

This paper will demonstrate our findings to an extent that will convince most reasonable and rational people. When I discovered this years ago, I termed this condition or situation ‘Royal Supremacy’. It meant that a condition existed where a closed or “controlled environment” had been created and had been sustained over the course of thousands of years. I also discovered, as a result, the use of a language within language, which I have termed ‘The Royal Language’ (see my paper, ‘A Few Words About The Royal Language’). [VI]

These ancient royals, thus, were writing religious texts, including those which comprise the Bible. They traditionally, as royals, held power over religion. The Pharaohs, for example, would give the succession of the throne their first born son. While the position of High Priest was given to the second son. If either of these should die or the situation was not so that this could happen in this way, the positions were filled in some way that would remedy that. In some instances, the first son would fill both positions. And, since Arrius Piso has created Christianity, he and his family kept the highest positions in the Church to themselves. And thus, we find that the Bishops of Rome, who were later called ‘Popes’, were Arrius Piso himself as saint Peter, and then his sons, grandsons, and so on. [VII]

Why have I laid out all of this before even mentioning the Gordian Emperors? Because, it is something that you will have to know beforehand if you are to understand our conclusions. You see, in order to reconstruct these genealogies, we had to go through a process which is not yet used within academia.

One of those is to build a profile of each primary individual within an immediate family unit. That profile includes statistical data, such as birth and death dates, as well as the names of family members, etc. And, a part of what we had discovered is that the way in which all of this has been hidden for so long was that they had used alias names and the authors would use pen names. Read my book ‘Piso Christ’ and my various research papers, as well as those of others in this area, such as Sir Ronald Syme ‘Bogus Names’, and Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’. [VIII]

Because of the fact that what we have discovered has never been publicly known, it could not be taught within academia. Therefore, those within academia have been making several mistakes without realizing it. In my book, ‘Piso Christ’, I explained several things. For instance, I gave a list of what I call ‘The Six Major Assumptions’ made by those within present day academia. Each and every one of those things listed, must be considered (questions which need to be both asked and answered before one can reasonably proceed to research ancient history). [IX]

What this means in reality, is that those who have been taught within academia have been taught incorrectly, as the way that they read ancient history, and therefore, the way that they understand it is only on a superficial level. They do not have the knowledge, nor the tools to get to the level that is needed to understand what we have found. They are at a loss, and prone to simply disregard what they do not understand. They may even rebel against it. [X]

But if we are to hold the study of ancient history to the same standards as science itself, then we must not reject things out of hand but either prove or disprove new or different ideas. If this is not the case, then surely there is some way to demonstrate that. By the same token, if it is true, then that too, should be something which can be demonstrated. Ignoring what we may not like or understand is not logical.

Some things that are true may not be to our liking, but that does not mean that they are nonetheless true. When all, most, or a majority within academia are studying incorrectly and their conclusions are wrong, then citing ‘peer-reviewed’ papers actually has the opposite meaning of what most may think. Instead, it would then be wrong and incorrect, believing that someone else who is likewise wrong and incorrect, is correct. Which, benefits no one.

First, because he is the common thread within so much of this research, we should familiarize ourselves with that individual whose name was Arrius Calpurnius Piso (he made himself an essential, and central focal point, and the key to unlocking the true nature of ancient history itself). He jokingly told the truth while playing the part of the NT Jesus, saying, “I am the Way” (John 14:6). As he knew that he was “the Way” to get at the truth. Which also makes us think of the NT line, “the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). We now realize though, that such statements were said in an entirely different context than most have imagined until now. The NT texts were deliberate fraud, and the authors were joking about it as they were writing them. They even put disclaimers within their works and may be seen and understood clearly, if you know what to look for, and where. Also, they wrote the gospels in the form of a play as a narrative, with Acts and Scenes.

Some of those who reject this out of hand tend to say that there is no one in history by the name of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. Well, yes and no. That is, due to the very nature of what is involved in keeping their true identities only known to other royals, it was not wise (or necessary, for that matter) to use his true names in any obvious way. It is necessary to understand that because this was done in a different context, that it was a necessity to those ancient authors to hide their true identities. Thus, Arrius Piso and his family had to use aliases and pen names while hiding their true identities. That did not mean that they did not exist. To think that is simply a failure to understand this correctly. [XI]

In fact, it was indeed used, but in either a piecemeal way, or by spreading it out, and/or disguising it. That is, once this is examined, one will realize that he (Arrius Piso), and his family members, had hid their true identities by utilizing any and all methods, and whatever means were available to them – and, as we have learned, by doing so in some very creative ways! [XII]

His (Arrius Piso’s) true names of, “Arrius”, “Calpurnius”, and “Piso”, were given by his son Julius Piso within ‘The Revelation’ (which he, Julius Piso, had authored). And, the Jews who were witnesses to the creation of Christianity, inserted his names within the Talmud as well! Arrius Calpurnius Piso, was a central figure in all of his, because he was the main creator of Christianity. And, he was a son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso, who was put to death by Nero in 65 CE. [XIII]

In history, written by himself and his relatives, he is given various names including (Marcus) Antonius Primus (in Tacitus, Pliny The Younger, and Suetonius), and Arius Antoninus (the grandfather of emperor Antoninus Pius, who was aka ‘Suetonius’). Several so-called scholars have insisted that a) there was no one in history named ‘Arius’ (or ‘Arrius’ as the spelling in Greek), and/or that ‘Arius’ was not a Roman first name.

Well, he, Arrius Piso, did have another name as his “first name”, it was ‘Marcus’. He inherited the ‘Marcus’ name from his ancestor Marcus Antonius. And, the name ‘Antoninus’ was a name created out of the combination of ‘Antonius’ and ‘ninus’ (‘baby boy’, hinting at Arrius Piso as the baby Jesus). But, we must point out here that the imagined name usage that those within academia have had, was a created illusion. Like many others that they had created, that was not how they, ancient royals, actually used names.

What I mean is that the use of first, middle and last names was an illusion, like the many other illusions and facades that ancient royalty had created. They created many illusions for different reasons some were to prevent the masses from rising up and killing them, and others were created to pacify or placate them. Others, to confound, confuse or to simply keep them ignorant and even superstitious. Even the names themselves were created in various ways and for various reasons. They had created ‘rules’ in language usage too, as a means to prevent the discovery of their use of the Royal Language. [XIV]

And, regarding Arrius Calpurnius Piso, we find his name by reconstructing it and finding where variations of his names were used, and where his names were used to created some of the alias names and pen names that he had used. I will be writing a paper which gives not only his alias names and pen names, but those of many of his family members and descendants. This has been a monumental task. But it is one which is necessary if we are to ever change the way in which ancient history is studied from now on.

Contrary to what most people believe, “Academia”, where ancient history and religion are involved, was never created to get at the truth. It was there as a means to a career either in teaching and spreading the illusions created by ancient royalty, or as a vehicle of training for a career in the clergy. If it were, people who have already had a bias would not be allowed in, because in order to get at the truth one must first be objective and unbiased. And that brings us to the motivation of academic institutions for allowing the religious in and their misinformation (and even indoctrination) to pass for an education money. [XV]

And, it is for all of the reasons just stated here that I have been able to uncover what I have, while so many others have not. Now, on to the information that I have to share with you regarding the Gordian emperors.

Arrius Calpurnius Piso would go on to help his family members to continue the fraud. He helped his grandson, the son of his son Proculus Calpurnius Piso (aka St. Polycarp, and Bishop of Rome, St. Aristus, and Agrippa), Silanus C. Piso (aka Herodes Atticus, Bishop of Rome, St. Hygenus). Silanus C. Piso would then become famous in his own right, writing as Herodes Atticus. I will soon write a paper about Silanus Piso as Herodes Atticus, as well as much more about the various facets involved in revealing the true nature of ancient history including profile building for principle individuals and their relatives, to aid in reconstructing the family trees that these ancient authors had disguised within their texts.

Descent Of The “Christian Writer” Athanagoras From Arrius Calpurnius Piso:

Below: Arrius Piso, aka Flavius Josephus, his son Proculus, aka St. Polycarp, and his grandson Silanus, aka Herodes Atticus, and Silanus’ son, who wrote as a “Christian” writer using the alias of ‘Athanagoras’.

Descent Of Silanus Piso Aka Herodes Atticus From Arrius Piso:

Arrius Calpurnius Piso aka Flavius Josephus (b. 37 CE, d. 118 CE)

M. Queen Berenice (sister of King Agrippa II)

Proculus Calpurnius Piso aka St. Polycarp, etc. (b. 79 CE, died c. 162 CE?)

M. Vibullia Alcia/Aelia Vibia [Hispula?]

Silanus C. Piso aka Herodes Atticus (b. 101 CE, d. 179 CE)

M. Appia/Ulpia Annia Regilla [&/or Caecidia Tertulla, 2nd wife?] (died c. 160 CE)

Arrius [?] aka Athanagoras (a “Christian” writer, c. 145-190/200 CE)

M./N. __________ (Not Currently Known)

Notes regarding the straight line genealogical chart:

Abelard Reuchlin said that he had calculated that Silanus Piso was born in 101 CE, and not the 104 CE that most people think of with regards to Herodes Atticus. Arrius Piso had too many alias names to give that information here, so an attempt will be made to give as many of them as possible in a separate research paper.

Proculus Piso had several aliases which included ‘St. Polycarp’, ‘Aristus’ (bishop of Rome, later to be called ‘Pope’), and to denote his Herodian descent, he was called ‘Agrippa’ in the Vita of Flavius Josephus.

Silanus Piso’s daughter Elpinse/Ulpia Cordia (c. 142-165 CE) was the mother of Emperor Gordian I. She was married to Maecius Marullus. Silanus Piso’s daughter Athenais (c. 145-166 CE) was married to Julius Piso III (grandson of Julius Calpurnius Piso I, son of Arrius Calpurnius Piso). Their daughter, was Fabia Orestilla (aka Aufidia Cassia), who married Emperor Gordian I (born c. 157 CE, died 238 CE).

Emperor Gordian I, used a number of aliases. Among those were ‘Junius Cordus’, and Church Father ‘Julius Africanus’, and he also wrote as ‘Flavius Philostratus’ (‘The Athenian’). His daughter (who was sister of Emperor Gordian II), was Gordiana, aka Macia Faustina. She married Junius Licinius Balbus, aka Macrianus, aka St. Cyprian, aka Flavius Philostratus ‘The Lemnian’, aka Pope Sixtus II, born circa 170 CE.

Emperor Gordian II (b. circa 192 CE, d. 238 CE), was aka Jurist Herennius Modestin, as well as ‘Commodianus’, and ‘Athenaeus’ [a pen name]. He married his niece Gordiana.

Gordiana and Macrianus were the parents of Emperor Gordian III (born circa 225 [?], d. 244 CE). Emperor Gordian III was aka ‘Philostratus’ (son of ‘Nervianus’). Fabia Sabina Tranquillina married Gordian III in 241 CE. They had a son who had a few names and aliases. That son, ‘Flavius Athenaeus’ [part of his true name], wrote as Flavius Philostratus (‘The Younger’), and also as ‘Herodian’ (born c. 241 CE, died circa 300 CE).

So, as you can now see, the very individuals that have been cited by both the religious and those who thought that they were truly researching ancient history, have actually been citing royals using aliases and/or pen names, and who, were deliberately misleading the non-royal reader.

The scholars within academia as it currently exists, reject the information given in the ‘Historia Augusta’. But they do so for the reason that to them, it makes no sense. And the reason that it makes no sense, is because they are ignorant of what it actually is, who compiled it, or why it was written. It actually serves the same purpose as the works of Pliny The Younger and the works of Flavius Josephus (aka Arrius Piso). But it was not written to make sense to non-royals, or to those who did not understand the true nature of ancient history itself. Now, that more people are learning what was privileged information for royalty only, academia can now change so that these things will begin to be understood universally.

Straight Line Genealogical Chart #II

The Descent Of Emperor Gordian III From Pliny The Younger:

C. Avidius Nigrinus (aka Pliny The Younger, b. circa 62 CE, d. 116 CE)

Avidia Plautia (c. 110-120 CE)

M. L. Aelius Caesar (Emp. Hadrian’s Favorite, b. 101, d. 138 CE)

Ceionia Plautia (sister of Emp. Lucius Verus, ruled 161-169, b. 130 CE, d. 169 CE)

M. Q. Servilius Pudens (related to Emp. Trajan, ruled 98-117 CE)

M. Junius Licinius Balbus [E] (probably relative of Historian Tacitus)

Junius Licinius Balbus [Y] (several aliases, incl. Pope Sixtus II, Pope 257-258 CE)

M. Antonia Gordiana (aka Maecia Faustina)

Emp. Gordian III (b. 225, d. 244, ruled 238-244 CE, aka…)

M. Furia Sabina Tranquallina (b. circa 225, d. post 244?)

Flavius Athenaeus (b. circa 241/45, d. post 300 CE?, aka Fl. Philo. [Y], etc.)

Emperor Gordian III’s Descent From Emperor Antoninus Pius:

Arrius Piso/Cn. Arrius Antoninus/Flavius Josephus, etc. (b. 37 CE, d. 118 CE)

Claudia Phoebe/Pompeia Plotina/Arria Fadilla (b. circa 65/69 CE, d.c. 121/124 CE)

M. Emperor Trajan (b. 53 CE, d. 117 CE, ruled 98-117 CE)

Emperor Antoninus Pius (b. 121, d. 161, ruled 138-161 CE)

M. Annia Galeria Faustina Sr. (b. 105, d. 140 CE)

Aurelia Fadilla/Ulpia/Appia/Annia Regilla (b. circa 118, d. circa 134/135 CE)

M. Plautius Silvanus/Silanus C. Piso/Herodes Atticus (b. circa 101/104, d. 162 CE?)

Plautia Silvana (aka Athenais, b. circa 120, married c. 145 CE?)

M. Marcus Annius Severus (aka Julius C. Piso III, aka…)

Fabia Orestilla (b. circa 165, married Gordian I in 192, d. 238 CE)

M. Emperor Gordian I (b. 157/159, d. 238, ruled 238 CE)

Antonia Gordiana (aka Maecia Faustina)
M. Junius Licinius Balbus [Y] (several aliases, incl. Pope Sixtus II, Pope 257-258 CE)

Emp. Gordian III (b. 225, d. 244, ruled 238-244 CE, aka…)

M. Furia Sabina Tranquallina (b. circa 225, d. post 244?)

Flavius Athenaeus (b. circa 241/45, d. post 300 CE?, aka Fl. Philo. [Y], etc.)

Descent Of Emperor Gordian III Through Proculus C. Piso:

Arrius Calpurnius Piso aka Flavius Josephus (b. 37 CE, d. 118 CE)

M. Queen Berenice (sister of King Agrippa II)

Proculus Calpurnius Piso aka St. Polycarp, etc. (b. 79 CE, died c. 162 CE?)

M. Vibullia Alcia/Aelia Vibia [Hispula?]

Silanus C. Piso aka Herodes Atticus (b. 101 CE, d. 179 CE)

M. Appia/Ulpia Annia Regilla [&/or Caecidia Tertulla, 2nd wife?, died c. 160 CE]

Appia/Ulpia Elpinse Cordia (c. 142-165 CE)

Emp. Gordian I (Julius Cordius/Julius Africanus/Fl. Philostratus ‘The Athenian’)

Antonia Gordiana/Maecia Faustina (Emp. Gordian II’s sister)

M. Junius Lic. Balbus/St. Cyprian/Fl. Philostratus ‘Lemnian’/Pope Sixtus II, etc.

Emp. Gordian III (b. circa 190/225, d. 244 aka Philostratus, son of Nervianus)

M. Fabia Sabina Tranquillina

Fl. Athenaeus/Fl. Philostratus [Y]/Historian Herodian (b. circa 241, d. post 300?)

Descent Of Emperor Constantine I From Emperor Gordian I:

Emp. Gordian I (Julius Cordius/Julius Africanus/Fl. Philostratus ‘The Athenian’)

Antonia Gordiana/Maecia Faustina (Emp. Gordian II’s sister)

M. Junius Lic. Balbus/St. Cyprian/Fl. Philostratus ‘Lemnian’/Pope Sixtus II, etc.

Gordiana (niece of Emp. Gordian II)

M. Emp. Gordian II (b. circa 192, d. 238 ruled 238 CE)

M. Julius Constantius [E] (aka…)

Eutropius (aka Pope Felix I, Pope 269-274 CE)

M. Claudia Crispa (dr. of Flavius Crispus, bro. of Emp. Probus?)

Emp. Fl. Julius Constantius Chlorus I (aka Pope Eusebius, etc.)

Emp. Constantine I (aka… b. 274, d. 337 ruled 306-337 CE)

Descent Of Emperor Theodosius I ‘The Great’ From Emperor Gordian I:

Emp. Gordian I (Julius Cordius/Julius Africanus/Fl. Philostratus ‘The Athenian’)

Antonia Gordiana/Maecia Faustina (Emp. Gordian II’s sister)

M. Junius Lic. Balbus/St. Cyprian/Fl. Philostratus ‘Lemnian’/Pope Sixtus II, etc.

Gordiana (niece of Emp. Gordian II)

M. Emp. Gordian II (b. circa 192, d. 238 ruled 238 CE)

M. Julius Constantius [E] (aka…)

Eutropius (aka Pope Felix I, Pope 269-274 CE)

M. Claudia Crispa (dr. of Flavius Crispus, bro. of Emp. Probus?)

(Fl.) Valerius Constantine Dardanus (b. circa 250 CE bro. of Emp. Constantius Chlorus)

(Fl.) Maximianus Constans (c. 320 CE)

Count Theodosius (d. 375 CE)

Emp. Theodosius I ‘The Great’ (b. 347, d. 395 ruled 379-395 CE)

M. Aelia Flaccilla (b. 356, d. 385/6 CE)

M. Flavia Galla (dr. of Emp. Valentinian I she was b. 374, d. 394 CE)

Emp. Honorius (Emp. of the West, 395-423 CE, aka St. Augustine, etc.)

M. 1st Wife: Thermantia, 2nd Wife: Maria

Herodes Atticus’ father (Proculus Piso), was supposed to have found a fabulous treasure, which he had reported to the Emperor Trajan. Trajan told him (Proculus Piso), to keep it. The reason for that having been written, is so that if anyone else were to find a huge treasure, that they would have no fear in reporting it to the emperor. If they were not royal, it would then be taken from them. Also note that the villa of ‘Herodes Atticus’ has been found, in Eva Kynourias (Greece).

Because history for hundreds, even thousands of years, was being written only by royalty, the “history” which was being recorded was not about the history of anyone other than royals themselves, almost exclusively except where the masses or non-royals (that is, “commoners”) were being spoken of in or as groups for the most part. Such as groups of religious believers, soldiers in armies, or generically as people living in particular towns, villages, cities, etc.

Though royals only writing of royals may have left out a lot of history that may have been made by those who were “commoners”, it also means that the histories that were left were in a sense “pristine”, in that they only referred to royals and royals that were known to other royals at a certain time and place. Which means that this makes it possible for us to determine just which royal was writing and just who they would have been writing about instead of just anyone living at the time. And that is why we build the profiles that were spoken of above.

So, how could this have happened in the first place, and why is it so different or even counter to what has been believed? The hypothesis that I have is that just as in the general population today, there was a percentage of the total population that were what today we term psychopaths (see my work regarding psychopathy, I use the term ‘psychopath’, but divide them into two categories the Primary or true genetic psychopath, and the Secondary type that includes all others, including the “psychopath by proxy”). And, that a certain percentage of those psychopaths in ancient times were born of “royal blood.” Perhaps when it is ever demonstrated (and thus, generally known) that there exists a) genetic psychopaths, and/or b) that they are born as something akin to a “non-human” (or “anti-human” being), or c) even as a predator sub-species of us human beings, we may better answer such questions via genetic discoveries.

There are so many aspects to studying ancient history as it should be studied, that so many of them have gone unstudied because researchers could not even begin to study or consider while still unknown to them. Which is why we must bring all of these aspects out and demonstrate where they all fit together. Things, such as alias names, disguised and deliberately hidden genealogies (and how to reconstruct them), and compiling information (or statistical data) that was concealed by ancient authors, and understanding the Royal Language (a language within language), and building advanced profiles for each principle individual in ancient history (see my work regarding ancient aliases and building profiles).

Why only citing items or giving references in the way that current academia is used to is not adequate in this new way of studying, except in certain instances? Because as will be found, due to history having been recorded within a closed environment, and because it was written in a completely different context it is then, that its true nature, much more complex than simply reading superficial history. It will require much more knowledge and knowledge of not only many new aspects, but also knowledge of other related fields that have for the most part, been studied as separate disciplines.

One instance, where citing references does work is where I have given references from the works of Flavius Josephus for the descent of King Herod from Eleazar Auran, of the Hasmoneans (see my work, ‘King Herod Was A Hasmonean’). But citing only references in this new way of studying ancient history fails when citations lack other components that are needed, such as the proper context of various parts.

Because history was given in a very different way than believed before, some items were given in a different context purposely. And thus, some things, such as where ancient authors gave ‘disclaimers’, must be explained as well – and not just being referenced. Perhaps entire papers need to be written about such things as opposed to just giving or citing references.

Ancient authors did not write in an honest, clear or even forthright manner. And they, in fact, deliberately tried to mislead the non-royal reader (see my work explaining how ancient authors would compete with each other to give the most possible meanings to their statements to confound and confuse those who might try to discern the meaning of their statements they did this because by doing so, it would make the “mystery of the gospels” and other mysteries that they created, mysteries for as long as possible).

Without knowing just how to read ancient writings as the authors themselves did (in the Royal Language), the non-royal, non-privy reader would very much be trying to work from an impossible position much like a blind person who could not see, nor understand that which is right in front of them. Also, because one of the methods that they used to confound and confuse was to do what they could do by working in concert with each other they scattered information, not only within their own works, but they would hand off items for other authors to put into their works, usually by making such statements and/or info appear in an entirely different context so that the reader would not be able to make the connection. Finding examples of this proves this to be the case.

This is why whether or not people like hearing this, I nonetheless tell them you need to read all extant literature of the time possible, in the original language, from primary sources or their equivalent. Think about this. Not only would answers or otherwise missing information be given by spreading it out in other works by other individuals, but also by disguising it and putting it into a different context. Add to this, the fact that they would also skip several generations of authors within their family so that a grandson, great-grandson, or even a descendant further out would give key information regarding a central figure (such as with Arrius Calpurnius Piso being written about under his aliases of ‘Apollonius of Tyana’ and as ‘Scopelian’ by his descendant Emperor Gordian I, writing as Flavius Philostratus ‘The Athenian’).

Also, the result of citing things from works that have been read by the individual while that individual has not read other extant writings of the same period is virtually the same as a religious person picking and choosing only certain passages or items that support their personal views while ignoring others that do not. That is, it is in reality, another form of what is known as “cherry-picking”. And, even when the researcher is trying not to, a bias is created. So, that needs to stop if we are to begin studying ancient texts as we honestly need to.

Because the true nature or true context of ancient history is actually very different than has been thought, this also exposes the reason why the assumption that the passage in Flavius Josephus that mentions ‘Christ’ was a later addition, does not work. They, the authors who were writing, and who have been cited by researchers who have been studying incorrectly, were actually “in on it” and were descended from the author writing as Flavius Josephus himself.

Those who have fancied themselves “authorities” and great scholars, have actually been citing family members and other royals who were writing from within a controlled environment, without the slightest idea that they have been doing so. Thus, those trying to “prove” that the passage in Flavius Josephus was a later addition, placed there by Christians, must wake up now to the fact that those “later Christians” such as Eusebius, Origen, or even Constantine, were all descendants of the very individual who was the main creator of Christianity. And that he (Arrius Piso) did place that mention in his works originally as a means to promote (make known) the religion which he had for the most part, created.

References And Related Papers:

[I] The Gordians & The Philostratii. Emperor Gordian I was aka ‘Flavius Philostratus’ (‘The Athenian’). He wrote ‘The Life of Apollonius of Tyana’ and ‘The Life of Scopelian’ both which were aliases of Arrius Piso. And therefore, they were written to give information about the life of Arrius Calpurnius Piso. The information came from an autobiography and diaries of Arrius Piso that were passed down within the family archives.

Flavius Athenaeus, son of Emperor Gordian III, wrote as (‘Flavius’) Philostratus ‘The Younger’. He wrote the 2nd set of ‘Imagines’. He also wrote histories as ‘Herodian’. He was grandson of Philostratus ‘The Elder’, who was his mother’s father. Flavius Athenaeus’ mother, Furia Sabina Tranquillina, was aka Flavia (F.Uria/Aria) Arria Sabina Tranquillina. She was daughter of a Praetorian Prefect of Gordian III, who was also one of his relatives. And, as stated above, he was aka (Flavius) Philostratus ‘The Elder’ (aka Philostratus of Lemnos), who wrote the 1st set of ‘Imagines’. His name in history is given as ‘Timisitheus’, which is “Timi” S(abinus) Itheus/Atheus. Again, they created these alias names in a variety of ways but as royals, a main source is their ancestry as they inherited the use of the names of their ancestors.

[II] RE: “Whitewashed” and misleading history. We now know a number of things that we had been taught in history was not so. Columbus did not discover America. Columbus was not the good and great man that we were taught he was. And, many of the missionaries who came over “to convert the heathen native Americans” to Christianity, actually brutalized them. They killed, tortured, raped and robbed them. And many terrible individuals down through history were actually made “saints”, including many of the popes. Family relationships were known, but hidden from the public. Such as that of Father Junipero Serra, who was a descendant of the notorious Borgia papal family. We now know the truth about The Crusades and the Inquisitions and how truly horrible they actually were.

Many problems still exist within Academia. We need to bring Academia into the 21st Century.

Essential Changes To Academia Now Required

True Nature Of Ancient History

[III] The masses, or “commoners” lived a very different life down through most of written history than that of royalty. Those who were not royal, for instance, had no actual basic human rights (that is reason for the long war of the Pharisees, who were fighting to give the masses basic human rights, and end to slavery, and a truly democratic government. In my research, it appears that Nero had tried to will the Roman Empire to the Pharisees upon his death, but Arrius Piso and his supporters tried to wipe out all of the Jewish sects to insure that that did not happen. That too, by the way, was the reason for the creation of a new religion to replace the old one that they had planned to destroy – which, became known as Christianity). Arrius Piso writing as Philo of Alexandria, refers to the “two races” of men meaning, the royals and the non-royals. There was a real Philo of Alexandria, who was a Herodian, and who was a common ancestor of both Arrius Piso and Pliny The Younger. The real Philo of Alexandria, was aka ‘Pontius Pilate’ (‘Roman’ procurator of Judea). He was called ‘Roman’, because the Herodians were sent to study in Rome and were ‘Romanized’. I will be writing more on this subject.

The Beginnings Of Christianity & The Evolution Of Popes

[IV] Regarding “The New Classical Scholarship” (NCS) and the need to study ancient history in a much different way, using new methods and procedures.

The New Classical Scholarship, uses solid scholarship & knowledge of ancient literature to get at the actual meaning of what was written in the original languages, by the original authors. That is, ancient texts are examined in the way that they should be not by speculation, assumptions, superficial or disconnected readings, but as literature, as that is precisely what they are.

That is why, no matter what, this methodology not only cannot be “debunked”, but will replace how ancient texts have been studied in the past. This is the way in which ancient texts (religious or otherwise) should have been studied for a very long time now. But since ancient texts in general, have not been studied this way, people still misunderstand it and argue about it due to their own ignorance of the subject matter and the correct methodology.

Many people today are still sorely ignorant of ancient language and the letters & words used at the time that they immediately think that anything to do with numbers (like �’) has to refer to something religious or superstitious, when in fact, their alphabet (or letters of the alphabet) were unlike ours today in that they served a dual or double purpose they were both letters AND numbers.

And, they were used that way on a regular basis. Their alphabet was what is called ‘alpha-numeric’. Up until fairly recent times, the Latin alphabet was regularly used to represent numbers. The NFL still uses the Latin letter-numbers (alpha-numerics) to designate which Super Bowl it is for each season.

Julius Calpurnius Piso wrote The Revelation and he used �’ to point to his father (Arrius Piso) writing as Flavius Josephus because at the time that he wrote The Revelation, the only other place to find �’ was in the writings of Flavius Josephus. Julius Piso finished The Revelation in 137 CE/AD.

Julius Piso’s nephew, Antoninus Pius (who became emperor), realized that 666 pointed directly to Flavius Josephus and he wanted to make it so that people would not look at Flavius Josephus for connections to the creation of Christianity so he wrote as Suetonius and made people think that 666 referred to ‘Nero’ (in 145 CE/AD).

[V] A royal oligarchy ruled over the known world for thousands of years. Also, ancient royals had traveled around the globe, but deliberately hid that information from non-royals. That is why they did not publish anything stating their world travels in any way that non-royals may understand. They hinted about it a lot. But only those who could understand what they meant (such as other royals who could read the Royal Language) would know what they were hinting at or referring to. For instance, they joked about it among themselves by putting a ‘globe’ (knowing that the world was round) in the hand of Jupiter on coins. They had long made up stories about ships falling off the edge of the world to prevent non-royals from attempting world travel.

Why? Because they know of all of the natural resources and wealth that existed elsewhere in the world and they wanted it all to themselves. We know, for instance, that massive amounts of copper were taken from the Great Lakes region of North America, and had been mined there for thousands of years. There are no European or Near East sources of copper that could have supplied the amount of copper coins and other copper/bronze items that were made over the course of thousands of years, other than that source. And, the missing copper, had it remained in North America, would have been found by now. Also, objects have been found in and around those mines that prove that Romans and others had been there at various times down through history.

[VI] Royal Supremacy and the “closed” or Controlled Environment. And, the Royal Language.

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions

Napoleon Bonaparte & The Holy Roman Empire

Royal Supremacy: When The World Lacked Freedom

[VII] The Piso family and their descendants were popes. The following papers will demonstrate just which popes given within these papers had descended from Arrius Piso and his family.

The Beginnings Of Christianity & The Evolution Of Popes

The Calpurnius Piso Family And The Origin Of Popes

Pope Anastasius I As Father Of Emperor Marcian

Galen The Physician & Emperor Didius Julianus

Descent Of Popes John III & Pelagius II From Arrius Piso

The Descent Of Pope Fabian From Pope Pius I

Julius Calpurnius Piso & His Family Of Popes

Who Was The Often Quoted Tertullian?

Pope Alexander VI (his ancestors & descendants)

Pope Gregory V Descent From Arrius Piso

The Descent of Pope Leo X From Arrius Piso

Napoleon Bonaparte & The Holy Roman Empire

[VIII] Alias names and pen names as the key to reconstructing their family trees, and as an essential part of building profiles, and of acquiring additional data about various individuals written about in history. I will be writing more on this subject and giving the various alias names and pen names that have been discovered so far. Here are a few papers that give examples for now.

This is a condensed example of a compiled Profile.

Lifetime of Principle Individual: First & Second Century C.E.

Name (Main Public Name/s): Flavius Josephus/Arrius Antoninus/Arrius Varus, etc.

Name (Main Private Name/s): (Marcus Antonius) Arrius Calpurnius Piso

Name (Aliases &/or Pen Name/s): Too many to list, see Master List Of Alias Names

Rank Or Other Status: Virtual Co-Emperor, General, etc.

Basic Statistics: Birth, Death, Marriages, Children. Born 37 CE, Died 118/119 CE.

Names Under Which Birth &/Or Death Is Given: Birth date as Flavius Josephus.

Death as ____________________. Marriages/s under name/s of _____________.

Number of Marriages (Wives): 3 or 4 known. Wives Name/s.*

Of Family: Calpurnii Piso, Flavians, etc.

Related To: The Piso Frugi, Sabinii, Flavians, Herodians, Hasmoneans, etc.

Immediate Family: Mother, Father, Grandfather/s, Grandmother/s, Aunt/s, Uncle/s.

Mother: Arria The Youger. Father: Gaius Calpurnius Piso. Paternal Grandfather: ____.

Paternal Grandmother: _________. Maternal Grandfather: T. Flavius Sabinus II. Maternal Grandmother: Arria The Elder (sister of Seneca).

Aliases Of Family Members: (see Master List Of Alias Names)

Career/s: Roman General, Virtual Co-Emperor, etc.

Career Name/s & Notes: Cestius Gallus, Roman General (M.) Antonius Primus, ____. Titus, as Virtual Co-Emperor (w/ Emperor Titus, thus, the confusion) etc.

Home Location/s: Villa Of The Pisos (Herculaneum, at the Bay of Naples), etc.

Literary Works (if any): Flavius Josephus, Philo of Alexandria, NT gospels, Plutarch, etc.

Descendant of Well-Known or Principle Individuals: Mark Anthony, Cleopatra, K. Herod, etc.

Sources Of Aliases Used: Too many to list, many from inherited names & titles (see Alias Deduction List).

Primary Sources: Flavius Josephus (Whiston translation, and Loeb Classical Library Edition), too many to list (see books that mention him by alias names, and those of his family).

Other Sources/References: ‘Christ And The Caesars’, Bruno Bauer, ‘The Rise, Decline And Fall Of The Roman Religion’, James Ballantyne Hannay, ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’, Abelard Reuchlin, ‘Piso Christ’, Roman Piso, etc.

*Vitellia (dr. of Emp. Vitellius), Boionia Procilla, Queen Berenice (sister of K. Agrippa II).

[Note: Profiles will cross-reference with each other. And a “Master List Of Alias Names” is essential to work from]

Determining Ancient Identities And The True Nature Of Ancient History

Discovering Aliases And Pen Names Used By Ancient Authors

Working Through Bogus Names In Ancient Texts

Determining Identities Of Ancient Royal Authors

Discovering Tacitus As Neratius Priscus

[IX] The Six Major Assumptions within Academia currently. There is also a list of facades and illusions that were created by ancient royals, which continue to fool so-called scholars even today. I’ve instructed people about these many times and have written about them in my papers and in the book ‘Piso Christ’. I will continue to inform and educate people regarding these important discoveries.

This is a list of the ‘Six Major Assumptions’ within Academia today.

One. The assumption that ancient authors were who they said they were. And just taking their word for it. When, in fact, there were liars and psychopaths in those times as well. Some, obviously born into royalty.

Two. The assumption that ancient authors were writing in an honest and forthright manner. It is similar to just “believing” in or having “faith” in a religion. Which is not at all how academia should be.

Three. The assumption that ancient authors did not have vested interests, hidden agendas, or ulterior motives for misleading or even lying to their (non-royal) readers.

Four. The assumption that just anyone could write and get published, and that many people were doing so which also assumes that the authors were not closely related to each other and were not writing in concert with each other.

Five. The assumption that ancient authors were not writing from within a closed or “controlled” environment (one, which has now been recognized and termed ‘Royal Supremacy’).

Six. The assumption that ancient authors were not using literary devices and other methods in which to deceive both the non-royal reader, and therefore, also the masses.

Besides these Six Major Assumptions, there is also a long list of Facades & Illusions that were created by ancient royalty. The assumptions made and continued to be believed in by Academia remained so mainly because of the false belief in these created facades, illusions and ideological concepts.

How & Why Ancient Royalty Created Facades & Illusions

[X] Academia, at this point, is still at a loss. In truth and in reality, since what is being taught is incorrect and is believed to be correct, it keeps so-called scholars chasing their tails or going in circles, so that they waste both their time and ours. This must be corrected. Even those who have reached the point in their studies where they have found a Roman authorship for the New Testament and creation of Christianity, still tend to be at a loss and often go off into tangents and may still get many things confused, as studying on this level is very complex, takes much time, dedication, and must be honed.

Regarding Joseph Atwill’s Titus

[XI] The necessity of aliases and pen names. Ancient royals were creating illusions and facades in order to mislead non-royals. One of the reasons is that since only royals who were living at any given point in time could write, and only royals trained to do so were up to the task, meant that each one had to use different pen names in order to create the illusion that a) there was a measure of freedom where anyone could write and have their work published and sold. As well as, b) make it appear as if there were many more people writing than their actually were. They, the royals, were writing ALL things written for publication. And, that, of course, included all of the religious texts. The only way that a religion could get started and promoted is by royalty doing so.

There are three major religions in the world today, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, that are all causing a world of trouble. They were all created in ancient times, by ancient royalty. No one was allowed to write anything for publication, nor could they distribute literature, under penalty of death except for royalty.

That kind of limits just WHO could have written religious texts.

[XII] Continue to read my work and research papers for more examples of Arrius Piso’s various names being created, used, hidden and disguised. I will be writing a paper soon which will detail just that.

[XIII] Arrius Calpurnius Piso’s three main and true names (“Arrius”, “Calpurnius” and “Piso” were given in The Revelation and in The Talmud. More about that in other papers, etc. Read the information given in Abelard Reuchlin’s ‘The True Authorship of the New Testament’ for more information regarding Arrius (Arius) Piso’s names. Arrius Piso was a son of Gaius Calpurnius Piso who was sentenced to death by Nero in 65 CE.

[XIV] How ancient royals had created and use alias names. Many examples have been and still need to be given and demonstrated. Which, I will continue to do.

[XV] The truth about current Academia. Regarding the subjects of Ancient History and Religion, colleges and universities were never created to get at the truth. That is another assumption. These subjects have always been taught for people to learn how to continue teaching incorrectly, and as a means to a career in the clergy. In more recent times, it has been used to prop one’s self up as an “authority” so as to sell books and get paid for lectures. The motive is not to strive for the truth, but for money.

Other references and related papers:

See my paper, ‘Ancient Alias Names List (2017)’, which can be found listed here

Arrius Piso was grandfather of Emperor Antoninus Pius, as ‘Arrius Antoninus’. This can be found via Claudia Phoebe/Pompeia Plotina/Arria Fadilla.

Prosopographia Imperii Romani (PIR) 2 T 587.

DIR – An Online Encyclopedia of Roman rulers and their families (2000).

‘Women of the Caesars: Their Lives and Portraits on Coins’, Giorgio Giacosa, 1977.

‘Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology’, William Smith, 1870.

‘Roman Coins and Their Values’, David R. Sear, Fourth Revised Edition, 1988, Seaby Publications Ltd., London, England.

‘Historical Implications of Roman Coins: a survey of Roman Coinage and its role in deciphering history’, Jean Stern, Fine Arts Gallery of San Diego, CA (1975)

‘Roman History from coins some uses of the Imperial Coinage to the Historian’, Cambridge Univ. Press, Michael Grant (c. 1958)

‘Roman History and Coinage 44 BC – AD 69’, C.H.V. Sutherland, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

‘Fifty points of relation from Julius Caesar to Vespasian’, Carol H.V.O. Sutherland, Oxford Univ. Press, 1987.

‘Ancient Alias Names List (2017)’ can be found at:

For another source of my research papers you may go here:

Again, we must work to change academia. Virtually all ancient history scholars have been wrong. And, they continue to “teach” others to be wrong. This must stop. Spread this information and help better educate as many people as you can, particularly, those within academia.

When we succeed in changing academia for the better, we also help change the world for the better. Remember, the Oligarchy that controls our world today, for the most part, are descendants of the original Oligarchy. Exposing the fraud is the only way we can take back our world and begin to base our lives upon reality instead of synthesized ideological concepts. Academia must be made to be what it should have been all along.

If you know someone who cannot read this because they cannot read in English, please read it to them or otherwise translate it for them. This information is extremely important and must be made universal knowledge.

Attention Classics & Ancient History ‘Scholars’: Richard Carrier, Marcus Borg, Robert M. Price, Bart Ehrmann, Robert Eisenman, Werner Eck, Anthony Birley.

Latin Numbers

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals
The content of this website provides a simple guide to the translation of Latin numbers into English. Learn the English translation of all of the Latin numbers into the English language together with examples and the meaning of Roman Numerals.

Modern use of Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals
This simple guide to the translation of Latin numbers and Roman numerals will increase your Latin vocabulary and help you learn the words in the language associated with numbers and numerals. Although the language is ancient we still use it in our modern world. Probably the most common example in the use of this ancient numeric system is on many clock faces in which the hours are marked as I to XII. Latin-Roman Numerals are used in English and other modern languages especially in relation to dates. This ancient style of Latin-Roman numbers are also used as version numbers of products e.g. Version II or on reports e.g. Appendix IV. Latin Roman numerals are used for sporting events such as the Super Bowl and the Olympics can also be seen on monuments, public buildings and gravestones.

Modern Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals
Latin-Roman numbers are used for the copyright dates on films, television programmes and videos, for example the Latin Roman numbers MMXIII translate as 2013.

Many Roman numerals are simply added together. Our example of the numbers MMXIII that translate as 2013 as follows: each ' M ' stands for 1000, ' X ' stands for 10 and each letter ' I ' stands for a single number or digit.

M + M =2000
X =10
I + I + I =3
MM + X+ III translates as 2000 + 10 + 3 = 2013

Latin Phrases, Numbers & Roman Numerals
The use of this ancient numerical system therefore still survives in many walks of everyday life in modern times. King Henry VIII is correct whereas referring to the king as Henry the 8th, or Henry 8, is not! It is not surprising that we look for a simple, free, online translator to enable us to understand the meaning of this ancient numbering system.

We have included articles on all the numbers with the translation of the words into the ancient language from numbers 1 - 1000. Examples of the Roman numerals for each number are also included. The Latin language and numbering system is still commonly used as part of our English language and vocabulary.

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals versus Arabic Numbers
Our number system, which is called Arabic numbers, consists of have ten digits from 1-9 and 0. We use all ten numbers to count to nine, then we combine them to make bigger numbers. The ancient Romans repeated symbols, so number 1 was I and number 2 was II . The ancient Romans did not use a zero.

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals - the Rules
For larger numbers, the Romans invented new numeric symbols, so number 5 was V , number 10 was X , and so on.

If a lower value symbol is after a higher value number, it is added so VI = 6

If a lower value symbol is before a higher value number, it is subtracted so IV = 4

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals - Seven Simple Letters!
Roman numerals are a simple, numerical system that is composed of just seven letters. The letters are, in this order, from lower to higher: I, V, X, L, C, D and M . Roman numbers, or numerals, are formed from traditional combinations of these seven simple letters or symbols. Each letter, or symbol, represents a different number.

I = 1, V = 5, X = 10, L = 50, C = 100, D = 500, M = 1000

The numbering system did not include ZERO

How to remember the Symbols and Letters!
The following helpful tip will help you to remember the symbols and letters used in the old numeric system.

"My Dear Cousin Loves extra Vegetables"

My M 1000
Dear D 500
Cousin C 100
Loves L 50
Extra X 10
Vegetables V 5

The History of Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals
The origin and history of this old classical numbering system was not documented by the historians of ancient Rome, however they were used by the Etruscans. The Etruscan numeric system was adapted from the Greek Attic numerals that provided the ideas for the later Roman numerals. The most obvious explanation of its origins is probably due to their counting system that was originally based on a counting method using the fingers. A single stroke of the pen would represent one finger and this translated to the number I . The additional letters used in the numerical system is based on the old word 'centum' meaning 100 and the word 'mille' meaning 1000 thus giving the numerals C and M.

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals
The interesting facts and information about this ancient, classical number system provides a simple guide to the translation of each number into the English language. Learn the English translation of all of the numbers into the English language together with examples and the meaning of all of the numerics. Find the words and phrases to help you learn the classical ancient language and understand the common phrases that are still used in modern times. An easy translation of every common number up to 1 million.

Latin Numbers & Roman Numerals

Latin - Italy - Vocabulary - Number - Numbers - Roman Numerals - Numeral - Dictionary - Phrases - Translation - English To Latin - Study Guide - Learn - Words - Quotes - Language - Translate - Meaning - Free - Online - Kids - Children - Count - Counting - Basic - Speak - Simple - Easy - Translator - Find - Lesson --Vocabulary - Number - Numbers - Roman Numerals - Numeral - Dictionary - Phrases - Translation - Kids - Children - Count - Counting - Speak - English To Latin - Study Guide - Learn - Words - Language - Translate - Meaning - Free - Online - Kids - Children - Count - Counting - Basic - Speak - Simple - Easy - Translator - Find - Lesson - Kids - Children - Count - Counting - Speak

Rules to correctly write an ancient Roman date - History

How to write Roman rustic capitals

This page teaches you a form of Roman writing which is useful for all sorts of headings, titles or even short passages of prose.

(There is a list of Roman numerals on a separate page in case you want proper medieval-looking dates etc.)

The Roman letters I'm talking about here are called rustic capitals. They were named 'rustic' probably because they are simpler and rougher than the smooth, elegant letters which were carved into monuments in the city of Rome.

If you haven't already seen rustic capitals, here's what they look like:

They are lovely, bold, swashy capitals!

Note that B, F and L are taller than the other letters.

You may also have noticed there are only 25 letters in the above alphabet. See which one is missing?

As mentioned on the Roman alphabet page, the ancient Romans actually only used 23 letters. I’ve followed the model supplied by calligrapher Marc Drogin for the modern letters J and W.

(Drogin's best and best-known teaching text is  Medieval Calligraphy: Its History and Technique  (Dover, 1989), pp. 89-91: Roman Rustic. I highly recommend this book for learning more about historical scripts and how to write them.)

What about the U, then? Well, you don't really need one. The rustic capital V looks something between U and V already. So use the V for both letters.

Your readers' eyes will understand it quite happily as an element which contributes to the classical Roman style of your calligraphy.

Now for some practical details.

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – maintaining a steep pen-angle

This form of Roman writing is around six nibwidths high.

Your pen angle should generally be quite steep. Somewhere around 50 or 60 degrees will produce the heavy diagonals and tall proportions that characterise the script. Experiment for yourself to see what weight you prefer.

As usual, I don't present the letters in alphabetical order. We'll start from those I think are easier and move on to the more difficult. The order is:

A M V W X Z | O Q C G S | D P R B T E F J Y | I L H N K

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – diagonal letters

The first six letters are all based on one or more strong, heavy diagonal strokes.

Oddly enough, A and M are very similar in rustic capitals.

Make sure you get a steep angle on the downstrokes. If they are too shallow, your letters will sprawl out sideways untidily. Roman writing in general is efficient, and rustic capitals are particularly tall and compact.

The next three – V, W and X – are also based on that heavy diagonal downstroke, like the first stroke of A or M. But the thin diagonal meets the thick diagonal at the baseline, instead of at the top of the letter:

Draw the heavy diagonal downstroke(s) first. Then, draw the very short horizontal cross-stroke to the top right. Trail back with the pen held at around 50-60 degrees for the thin diagonal.

This final line doesn't have to join perfectly, and sometimes crosses through the first downstroke.

As noted above, V stands in for U too.

W is a modern letter. But it is easy to see that if it had existed in Roman writing it would have looked like two Vs joined together.

And the last letter of this calligraphy alphabet comes early in the sequence because it is nice and easy!

By now, the long single diagonal of Z should not give you any problems.

Keep your cross-strokes horizontal, with just a slight graceful undulation.

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – round letters

We’re done with diagonals – for now. Let’s try the two roundest letters in the alphabet.

Again, the initial downstroke is generally quite steep. Most rustic capital Os are not circular but distinctly oval:

The tail of rustic capital Q is rather elegant. If you have space, it can be extended a little as a minor flourish.

Then, as in many other majuscule alphabets, C and G bear a close resemblance:

(The second stroke should not be formed as a cut-off O-stroke. It is flatter to start with, and then curls in quite sharply at the end. Thus the overall aspect of C and G is slightly triangular, suggesting an egg balanced on its pointed end. By contrast, O and Q are more regular, symmetrical ovals.)

While you’re enjoying these curvaceous aspects of Roman writing, lets get S done:

It is not an entirely regularly round letter. Maintain a steepish angle on that first, heavy diagonal, as for most of these letters. The lower pen-stroke is quite flat. The upper stroke curls in, like that of C and G.

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – vertical pen-strokes

Now for something completely different.

Do you remember that you are supposed to maintain a constant pen angle for writing calligraphy? Well .

Most letters in the rustic capital alphabet are composed of tall vertical pen-strokes

These tall verticals can be written two ways.

The first is easier: very skinny all the way up and down.

The way you do this is: turn your pen (yes, I know!) so the nib is facing across to the left at almost 90 degrees (like the illustration on the left).

Then draw it downwards, producing a thin but steady vertical line – not the thinnest possible, but quite thin, to the baseline. That's your basic downstroke.

Or, alternatively . (!)

The second method is the one I have used for all the rustic capitals in this tutorial.

This method creates lines that are skinny at the top but gradually flare out to become somewhat wider at the foot.

It is more difficult to do – but it looks good. (And is quite an impressive trick.)

There is really no practical way of achieving the flared effect with a calligraphy nib other than by twisting.

So rest the nib lightly on the paper at around 90 degrees to begin with.

Then, while drawing the pen down, simultaneously start twisting the nib steadily clockwise.

By the bottom of the stroke it should be angled at about 45 degrees.

So how does your vertical look? Wobbly? Lumpy? Yep. Mine too. Keep practising. It gets much smoother after the first thirty attempts. (Honest.)

(I find it helps to start the downstroke with very light pressure, then increase the pressure as the pen angle changes. It seems to steady things.)

You can have a lot of fun practising this. Try going from 0 to 90 degrees in the course of a single downstroke, then from 90 to 0.

Try lifting the right-hand corner of the nib off for an even thinner line. You can create some wonderful calligraphic effects.

Enough . back to Roman writing .

So now for the actual rustic capital letters which contain a thin downstroke.

(If that fancy flared vertical seems too fiddly, just use the regular thin vertical with your pen held at around 85 degrees, ie almost straight across the page. It is equally authentic.)

First, try D and its friends:

D is very round. (Think dumpling.)

R has a steep diagonal leg which should not collide with its own foot on the first vertical. Either make that foot very small, or else draw the diagonal leg first and then add the foot afterwards.

The rustic capital B is a lovely, almost Grecian-looking letter. Remember that it is taller than most of the alphabet by roughly 1.5 nibwidths.

B is one of the three tall letters in rustic Roman writing: they are B, F and L. (You can easily remember this with the phrase Big Fat Letters.)

Now for three rustic calligraphy capitals containing lots of horizontals:

Keep these fairly narrow. E is surprisingly slim. F is a tall letter, as noted above.

Notice how the foot on all three letters angles down a little while the cross-bars are perfectly horizontal.

Make sure your feet are lined up, that they are around the same size and that they progress at the same angle.

J is a modern letter. It combines a vertical, a cross-stroke and a curve.

And Y is a combination of two diagonals with a vertical. The only possible difficulty in writing Y is getting the proportions right with such short strokes.

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – hooked serifs

Again, we are going to conquer new calligraphic territory in this Roman writing lesson. Are you ready?

In many rustic capital letters, a vertical stroke starts with a hooked serif.

For letters such as B, D, E, R and F, you can leave this hook off. Instead, you create a serif with the beginning of the next stroke across the top of the vertical.

But H, I, K, L, and N all have one bare vertical stroke. The hooked serif lends definition and emphasis to the top of these weedy verticals.

There are two ways of forming this hooked serif.

One method is to draw a short line at about 70 degrees up to the top of where the downstroke will start. Then remove the pen, alter the angle to almost 90 degrees (ie pointing directly off to the left) and draw the vertical.

While the ink is still wet, use the corner of the pen-nib to fill in the internal curve of the hook.

If there is not enough loose wet ink, touch your nib to one of the thin strokes to deposit a little more wet ink, and use that.

The other method of creating this calligraphic hook is trickier and much more satisfactory, and is probably the method used in the original Roman writing.

Start with a short upstroke at 60-70 degrees.

While drawing it, twist the nib around 10 degrees anti-clockwise.

Continue twisting the nib another 10 degres anticlockwise as you start into the downstroke of the vertical.

When the nib has come around to 90 degrees, stop twisting.

Obligingly, your nib will have produced a hook. (I hope.) It takes some practice but it is well worth putting in the time for the control it gives you over the nib.

Then of course there is still the rest of the vertical to draw! And if you want a flared vertical, you must now twist the nib back clockwise on the way down so it is at about 45 degrees by the baseline.

(If you are unfamiliar with that expression, I am not much surprised but it's a good one, and I commend it to your use.)

I find it best to practise the hook twists and the vertical twists separately to begin with. Then have a go at merging them in one single, flowing movement of the pen.

The rustic capital letters requiring use of this hooked stroke in combination with horizontals are, in approximate order of difficulty I, L (a tall letter), H, N and K.

Notice that not only is L a tall letter, it also has a foot that descends quite pronouncedly below the baseline.

Five strokes to form a rustic capital H. It is a very handsome letter, though. Unlike other rustic capitals, H is wide by comparison with the modern version.

[Pause for breath . and for more practise of those hooked, flaring downstrokes]

Make sure N possesses that steep diagonal you perfected for A and M.

The diagonal should be slightly hollow-backed over its length. Don’t draw it as an upwards bulge.

K has a hooked vertical downstroke and a thin diagonal arm and a heavy diagonal leg. (Perhaps it’s just as well it was not too common in Roman writing.)

Draw a regular hooked downstroke to start with. Then, form the diagonal arm as for X and Y. Lastly, draw the heavy diagonal leg.

That's all the 25 letters of this particular Roman writing alphabet. I hope you will enjoy using rustic capitals. They deserve your attention.

Roman writing (rustic capitals) – letter spacing

  • the longer strokes at the base of B, D, E, L, Q and to some extent T tend to descend more steeply than the shorter feet on other letters.
  • The lower stroke of L and Q, especially, almost sits underneath the following letter.
  • Roman writing shows very little decoration. It is mostly in the form of extended lines on X, L, Q, V etc where space allows in the margins or the top and bottom of the page.

Most Roman writing in capitals lends itself naturally to calligraphic headings and titles.

Rustic capitals are no exception. With a little playing around, you could turn a plain black set of letters into something quite exciting.


  1. Mezizshura

    I can recommend that you visit a site that has a lot of information on this subject.

  2. Ghedi

    the Excellent and timely answer.

  3. Ur-Atum

    Surely. I join all of the above. Let us try to discuss the matter.

  4. Tarick

    Bravo, as a sentence ... another idea

  5. Mikam

    I can speak a lot on this issue.

Write a message