Is History Fake? Was History Fabricated pre-1600? New Chronology Details
In the world of alternative history, few theories have been as widely debated and dismissed as Anatoly Fomenko’s New Chronology. This radical reimagining of historical timelines challenges the foundations of accepted history, proposing that the events of ancient civilizations—Rome, Greece, and Egypt—actually took place in the Middle Ages. More than just a reordering of events, Fomenko’s theory suggests a massive, coordinated effort to fabricate much of pre-1600 world history, allegedly orchestrated by powerful institutions such as the Vatican, the Holy Roman Empire, and the Russian House of Romanov.
The Core of the New Chronology
The New Chronology posits that recorded history is much shorter than conventionally believed. According to Fomenko and his collaborators, the written historical record only emerged around 800 AD, and most known historical events actually occurred between 1000 and 1500 AD. He claims that entire centuries were invented or manipulated to create an artificial past, obscuring the existence of a global empire he calls the “Russian Horde.”
Fomenko’s theory builds upon earlier revisionist ideas, including those of Russian scholar Nikolai Morozov (1854–1946) and the 17th-century French scholar Jean Hardouin, who claimed that many classical texts were medieval forgeries. However, Fomenko goes much further, using mathematical and astronomical methods to argue that historical timelines have been miscalculated and deliberately distorted.
The Methods and Claims
Fomenko’s methodology is primarily statistical, involving pattern recognition, astronomical analysis, and historical text comparison. He argues that numerous historical accounts are duplicated versions of the same events, artificially spread across different centuries to construct a false historical timeline. He also claims that astronomical events described in ancient texts—such as eclipses—have been incorrectly dated and actually occurred much later.
Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the New Chronology is its claim that Andronikos I Komnenos, a 12th-century Byzantine emperor, was the real historical figure behind the legend of Jesus Christ. Additionally, Fomenko suggests that Jerusalem, Rome, and Troy were actually the same city—Constantinople—and that major historical figures like Genghis Khan and the Mongol Empire were actually fabrications of Russian history.
The Pseudoscience of the New Chronology
Mainstream historians and archaeologists universally reject the New Chronology as pseudoscience. It disregards established dating methods such as radiocarbon dating, dendrochronology, and archaeological stratigraphy. Fomenko’s statistical analysis is criticized for its selective data sampling, confirmation bias, and misinterpretation of historical records.
Furthermore, his theory lacks independent verification and does not adhere to rigorous academic methodologies. While it is true that historical records contain inconsistencies and biases, the idea that the entirety of ancient history was fabricated by a conspiracy is not supported by credible evidence.
The rise of the New Chronology coincided with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, a period of significant political and cultural upheaval in Russia. During this time, nationalist movements sought to redefine Russian identity, and Fomenko’s ideas found a receptive audience among those looking for alternative narratives that emphasized Russian historical supremacy.
Many scholars view the New Chronology as a form of historical revisionism that serves ideological purposes. By reinterpreting history to center on a powerful Russian empire, the theory reinforces nationalist sentiments and diminishes the historical contributions of other civilizations.
The Kasparov Connection
One of the most surprising proponents of the New Chronology was former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, who helped popularize Fomenko’s work in the 1990s. Kasparov was drawn to the idea that medieval history had been manipulated and saw parallels between Fomenko’s revisionism and the stagnation of scientific and cultural progress during the so-called Dark Ages. However, while Kasparov entertained aspects of the theory, he did not fully endorse its more extreme conclusions.
Despite its lack of academic credibility, the New Chronology remains popular among certain groups in Russia and beyond. Its appeal lies in its grand conspiratorial narrative, which offers a sense of hidden knowledge and challenges mainstream authority. However, the danger of such theories is that they distort historical understanding, promote nationalism under the guise of scholarship, and undermine legitimate historical inquiry.
History is a complex and evolving discipline, grounded in evidence and scholarly debate. While alternative perspectives are valuable in challenging assumptions, they must be based on rigorous research and factual accuracy. The New Chronology fails on both counts, making it a fascinating but deeply flawed pseudohistorical fantasy.