>>508432682
>You can disagree with his hypothetical reconstruction of history, which he is careful to keep separate from his presentation of the proof of massive, large scale historical fuckery. You can't disagree with that, you'd be stupid to try. You haven't even seen it - I can tell - so it's impossible for you to debunk it.

Fomenko isn't the only person who has proposed that large swaths of our history have been faked. These articles on UNZ.com are the best I've read on the subject. I don't really know what to think, but the idea that Roman history was faked, that Latin was a fake language like Esperanto create for commercial purposes, and that the church supported all of this makes intrinsic sense to me.

https://www.unz.com/article/how-fake-is-roman-antiquity/

Basically, almost all of our information about ancient Rome comes from medieval manuscripts. There are no ancient papyrus sources or ancient Roman books that survived, anywhere, from Roman times. All we had were "copies" that just happened to show up in the early renaissance. To me it seems plausible that the Ancient Greeks had a real civilization, and that is what most of the Roman ruins actually are. Also makes sense why the Greek speaking eastern Roman empire lasted until the 1400s.

My guess is anywhere from 500-1000 years of history were faked, largely by the Catholic church, to solidify their own legitimacy. A thousand year old religion just seems so much more legit and easy to believe in than a religion that's a hundred years old