Rating: 
Summary: Fomenko is highly entertaining, if not on target
Review: Fomenko is highly entertaining, if not on target
It should also be possible, as Fomenko states, to study regnal year lengths on a statistical basis. Historically, a long reign is generally followed by a succession battle and a number of shorter reigns. In the Old Testament period, kings were consciously reviving the memory of earlier kings, even to the point of trying to match their reign lengths. This was not always possible, but it probably did serve to reinforce natural and recognizable patterns (with statistical significance). He compares Germanic kings with the Biblical kings of Judah. Upon closer examination, the correlation is strained, but it is not surprising that the general pattern is quite similar. The dynamics of kinship did not really change that much over the centuries. I wish I had the time to better evaluate the Fomenko theories. They are highly entertaining, if not on target.
Rating:
Summary: Think different, or think as you like... But THINK!
Review: From the very beginning and on, the history was written to serve the ruling dynasties, and later re-written and revised to better serve every new prince, king or czar. The mighty kings of the past are just slaves of those of the present, who in their turn will become slaves of those who will rule the world in the future. It is just evident. So, history can only be called a science if (at least) it tries to find out the particles of truth in this fairy tale called historical chronology.
Mr Fomenko doesn't pretend to have found this truth. He simply gives us an enormous, incredible number of examples of "historical facts" which are quite identical from one ruling dynasty to another, from one nation to another, as if they were photocopies of the same original. It's up to the reader to make the conclusions, to take a new look at all he thought to be The History.
Every nation has its own, different "history" of the Second World War. Which one is true?
By the way, dear Sir who represents the Princeton University, Mr Fomenko says Jesus was born 1000 years ago, not 100, as you say. Though, of course, you are free to say what you think. Just think! Please...
Rating: 
Summary: It Is Priceless!
Review: Had no intention to buy this History initially. Then I saw the ultra-negative review entitled "Worthless". I looked into the contents of "Fiction or Science" just in case, for such vehement negation is bound to hide something. Was thoroughly impressed and bought it. Am reading it currently. Shocking, but really worth my dollars. According to Henry Ford, 'History is bunk'. The Russian mathematician seems to have proved it.
Rating:
Summary: The dam is falling apart
Review: History should be a Science. Eventually, it will be! Orvell has said: Those who control the past control the future. Those who control the present control the past. We, the people, must control our future.
In my younger years, my biologists co-workers, derived mostly from The Moscow State U, were complaining: "How dare you describe living systems with math?" I know they were naive.
A large group of physicists had run Cold Fusion into underground. Fifteen years later, CF is a well proven phenomena (DOE is anoncing some funding, but it actually will be another Manhatten Project, very soon). That was protecting the "hot fusion" turf = funding. I do not believe the "protectors" were naive!
Starting from Scaliger and Petavius, historyans have produced the "story line" paid for by the power (Roman Pope, Kings, "Elected" potentates (including Stalin, Hitler, and Idi Amin). The the European inquisition (expanded with the great help of Poland into Russia) helped a lot by destroying the physical artifacts, including the great library of the Ivan the Terrible (wrong translation of Groznyi), and disagreable people. Russians cannot claim the invention of Gulag. Gulag was also the means of writing the right history. Most historyans of that time have satisfied the need of the payees by burning books and people - that, I think, was a crime. Those who did not servant got burned (or gulaged).
Modern hystorians have learned the "story line" and they cannot switch to other jobs, they collectively stack in consentual and incestual relationships. This, I think, is prostitution.
The future historians will learn math (as biologists already did) and transform their story line into the science.
Fomenko is (1) destroying the "story line", and (2) creating a large set of hypothesis. Some hypothesis are better developed, others will be either rejected by facts, or modified, or proven as is. The X-ray image of the whole skeleton of his work is more or less accurate. It will take several hundreds (thousands?) of Ph.D. dissertations to create the "whole picture" and to establish the new body of academicians capable of writing and dissimenating the scientific history.
I have read several Fomenko's books in Russian. I highly recommend his <UNFUNDED> WORK and his books.
To the "modern" historyans, brothers of Scaliger: "It had been worse on the pile of burning Dark-Age-woods".
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting theories that deserve to be explored
Review: I do not agree with everything written in this book. For example, I do not agree with the idea that ankhs are supposed to be Christian crosses. I also disagree with the observations that different objects look like crescents and symbolize Islam. But there are a great number of valid observations contained in the book. Radiocarbon dating is not the science most of us think it is, as put forth in the book. I also have to agree with the author's idea that many pieces of evidence taken from old books and used to date people or events were either false and inserted by later editors, or otherwise erroneous. Let's face facts: the majority of ancient history is conjecture, or "educated guessing". It's about time an author came along and, in the author's own words, "called a spade a spade". Is this book 100% correct? Who knows? Do many of the theses contained within deserve further study? Yes, if history is to be a record of events and not propaganda or fuel for dogma. The more accurate we can make our history books, the better off other sciences will be, especially the humanities and any sciences concerned with gauging human progress in different areas throughout the ages. I give the book three stars mainly because I find some of the ideas put forth to be less than credible (the author shoud enlist other researchers with expertise in those areas besides math and physics), the translation to be not quite perfectly clear in some areas, and I dislike the organization of the book. The three stars are for the rest of the ideas and theories in the book that do make sense and deserve further exploration, or a reasoned rebuttal, especially the mathematical analysis of ancient texts. To the academics who summarily dismiss the book as rubbish...please point us to reasoned explanations. Us grown-ups who can read big words and read a book longer than a paperback novel deserve that much. Also, as an adult in this day and age, I will never just "take someone's word for it". How's that song go.."won't get fooled again!" I am especially waiting for someone to convince me that radiocarbon dating is worth using on objects less than many thousands of years old. I doubt it's going to happen!
Rating: 
Summary: Too expensive to waste my money at.
Review: I just read the editor's description, and being a mathematician myself, I thought I could say my opinion on this: Fomenko proposes that our history is at most 1000 years old, right? OK, we keep this equation in mind. Now, the Olympic games are said to take place every 4 years, correct? (I'm pretty sure there is enough archaiological evidence to support this). Also, written records (with names of who participated, who won, e.t.c.) are available from 8th BC till 4th AD. That already makes at least 1000 years + 108 years of modern Olympic games and we arrive at a contradiction...
Here is what I suggest to the editor: If I can find "5000 years of History" books for less than 40, should I be able to get this one that has "1000 years of history" for about 8 bucks?
Rating:
Summary: Scammers and Shills.
Review: I will read this book at the bookstore. it won't go home with me unless it proves to be less garbage than it appears right now.I wonder how many of the reviews here are by paid shills of the author and publisher. They set a sleazy enough example by publishing the impassioned plea to prove the author wrong and the Reward money.
Some of the "scandalized" reviews seem even less credible than the "I did the math and he is right" type reviews. I did apprecieate the reviewer who ran things through SPSS and noted the truism of "Garbage in, garbage out." Let me suggest the astronomical data in the The Annals of the Kingdom of Ireland by The Four Masters
which corespond to better than 2000 years of history in details unknown or unprovable till the late 1900s. Let me also suggest you read America B.C. by Barry Fell.
This book is not without its critics, but it changes history only by adding to what is known rather than pretending it did not exist.
Rating:
Summary: TOTAL RUBBISH.Untrue.
Review: If I could give it minus stars I would. So the entire Edifiace of all historians at The University of Oxford and the entire Western World are wrong and this chap is right. NO.I don`t think so. Not thought provoking..Mythological pseudo scientific clap trap as a what IF. Don`t even waste your money. I have never condemned a book so much..I have only praqised books on amazon. This severely anoyed me this book as a Ph.D. After this you may as well start buying David Icke and conspiracy theories and all else. Useless.Books like this can upset me. Go and be a alchemist or something. USELESS RUBBISH..flight of fANCY. AND SCIENTIFCALLY USELESS. EVERY DECENT HISTORIAN SHOULD BE OFFENDED. WE hAVENT BEEN DUPED NEITHER HAVE been professional historians..Only people who have been duped are readers of this book. Total nonsense. Offenesive.
Rating:
Summary: Alternative view
Review: If you can't handle an alternate view of history and how it may have been purposely kept from the general public, don't read this book. It is the best book I've ever read about history.
Rating:
Summary: I laughed a lot with this book
Review: In the middle of a lot of forced texts, the first think that made me laugh the most was the fact that, 16th century paintings depicting Classic age personalities were painted in 16th century style, thus proving that there was no middle ages. Even high school children can see that renaissance painters painted using their imagination, because therer were no archaelogical findings to sho how the ancient dressed and most of the painters had no formation in the classics. If I use this reasoning, maybe we can say that the americas wrere only discovered in the 19 th century since all paintings and drawings between the 15 to 18 century were innacurate in the depiction of the florsa and fauna
|
