>>509314986We do not know who this Hadrian really was because most ancient sources are "renaissance"period inventions. He probably existed, in contrast to Cesar.
With Konstantin, a lot of shit is fishy, especially his "conversion".
>at first attempts to depict in correct perspective were made before art regressed to 2d monk illustrationsthis would be a mistake. Renaissance Rome (as in the Italian city) made up large parts of their past, which is something most rich, degenerate city states did. They also made up ancient art. Those sculptures are all about 500, not 1500-2500 years old.
>i'll try heinsohn. thanks for the suggestion.some more:
>Fomenko, Morozov, Nosovskiygood Russkies but they went full retard. Their work is still decent in many regards.
>Emmet Sweeneydecent, not too sweeping takes
>Laurent GuyรฉnotHas probably the best summary. You can check out his articles at UNZ about chrono revisionism
>Edwin Johnsonoldie but a handful of very powerful books
>Sylvain Tristanhas focused on "ancient Greece" which I'm eternally thankful because otherwise I would have had to write that book.
>Heribert Illig also good but like a good German he's to timid and makes awefully technical arguments, losing the big picture.
You're in good company because even centuries ago smart men knew history is mostly inflated garbage. (as in they inserted several centuries to uphold judeo-christian narratives)
Isaac Newton of all people dabbled in revisionism but back then it was almost heretical.
Sieg.