Greek History Is Fake

Hypothesis: the Hellenic Era and its literature was an elaborate hoax by Phoenicians to cover up the history of their enemies the Arians.

For context: Francis Bacon, John Dee, etc. seem to have been part of a movement to create a whole library of English literature from scratch, meant for popular consumption. This is in contrast to the literature produced slowly by court patronage. Bursts of popular literature that leave a mark on the world is a sign of conspiratorial intervention my master cyberneticists. Sometimes called occult. Essentially, people with experience in manipulating the masses and creating narrative reality for civilized cultures. Propagandists.

The basis of this theory points to odd linguistic coincidences.
The Medes were by their own naming, Arians. Medes would mean something similar to the Middle Anglian confederacy calling itself "Mercia".
However, the Greeks claimed Media was named for Medea.
That Persia was named for Perses son of Perseus.
And here is where we identify the fingerprints of historiographical chicanery.

The hypothesis:
The races known as "Nephilim" or "Watchers" were in fact the I-E meta-tribe which called itself "Gaul". The name meaning the same as Nephilim. Gaul now including Hurrian, Hittite, Phrygian, Arian and so forth. Persian, Cimmerian. Also, obviously, Celt.
A priestly elite escaped the Persian Gulf meteor of 4500 BC that sunk Apsu. They ruled from Egypt and China jointly, at first.
The Gauls/Nephilim were a client race they used to protect the lands between the twin empires.
Like the Watchers, these rebelled.
See: Zeus and the Danaan to find memory of that rebelling.

The Hellenic era was an attempt to create new mercenary sub-races to reconquer the Gauls. Thus its literature was designed to satisfy contemporary readers who knew the old narratives, but drive a new narrative that effectively erases the religion and history of the Gauls.

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

It's All Fucked Shirt $22.14

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Roman Era Syrians remembered more of the old religion than Hellenic literature did, and Christianity was produced from references that are now lost.
    It was much less original than is assumed. It was also heavily Hebraized. Judaism itself was an attempt to create a religious legacy that obfuscated an extant culture.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Greek History Is Fake, because, BS reasons.
    Yeah, sure, next you are going to be telling me, that the nation of islam, was right about Yakub.
    Man,shut the frick up you idiot.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You like history but can't read and aren't familiar with it? Hmm.

      Anyway, Greek accounts of history become somewhat accurate around 250-200 BC. Everything before 250 is hazy and much of the Alexander shit was probably made up and a national founding myth.
      Hellenic literature was probably invented specifically to conquer the East and replace its culture.
      Hence the inclusion of the Titans in Hellenic narratives.

      Greek gods were mostly Danite/Minoan gods. What we might call Atlantean if specifically because they worshipped sea dragons and Atalan/Atalanta.

      The incorporation of the Gallic (Hittite) Zeus, with the Syrian Titans, into the Elladic oracle cults, is clearly an attempt to craft a universal religion for Persia where the Phoenician gods are supreme, secretly.

      I believe that Alexander and even Alexander Jannaeus were somewhat fake, and that Antiochus Sidetes was going to make Judaism the universal religion of Phoenician rule over Persia.
      Christianity is a by product of a backlash.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Now you say that Alexander "was made up"?
        Are you actually moronic????

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah dumbass.
          Alexander was the name of Paris from the Iliad. He was the "Son of God" that Greek mercenaries helped spread through Persia.
          The Iliad was about the war of Zeus against the Danites and it was changed to backend Hellenic culture, creating an alternative cultural narrative to the Gallic (Syro-Hittite).

          Ptolemy was, for instance, named after Ptah. However, he was retconned into the Iliad since he was part of the founding generation of Hellenic literature and culture.

          The idea is that Phoenicians hired Greek and primarily Macedonian mercenaries to restore order to a fragmented Persian Empire. They brought with them a collaborative, propagandistic cultural narrative which merged religious beliefs with history.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Do you see how powerful these narratives are.
            You homosexuals cannot let go of worshipping the wiener of the big mighty conquering hero.
            That's why they created the legend.
            Your homosexuality is entirely the reason you're drawn to history, to learn more about these studs.
            And half of history is fake because if it's written like softcore gay porn the stories are remembered longer.

            No.
            You are a schizophrenic moron that should just drop history, because you don't even make any sense.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I guess you're just a low-information enjoyer of history.
            >you don't make sense
            In other words, you aren't remotely familiar with any of these historical references.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Meant to respond to you:
            This post:

            No.
            I am actually familiar with them.
            It's actually you that are not.
            For example:
            >The idea is that Phoenicians hired Greek and primarily Macedonian mercenaries to restore a fragmented Persian Empire.
            Why would the Phoenicians want to do that?????
            That doesn't even make sense.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Do you see how powerful these narratives are.
          You homosexuals cannot let go of worshipping the wiener of the big mighty conquering hero.
          That's why they created the legend.
          Your homosexuality is entirely the reason you're drawn to history, to learn more about these studs.
          And half of history is fake because if it's written like softcore gay porn the stories are remembered longer.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >The Medes were by their own naming, Arians. Medes would mean something similar to the Middle Anglian confederacy calling itself "Mercia".
    Literally both of these are unrelated. This is on the same level as one Sumerian word being transcribed in Roman letters and pronounced as though you were speaking English (and ignoring it's actual pronunciation) being somewhat close to sounding like a Turkic word as to mean Sumerian was actually Turkish.
    You're basically conjuring schizobabble at this point.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      The Greeks recorded that the Persians were familiar with the reference.
      However, since you're dimwitted, I'll explain what I was trying to say here.
      Not that the Persians were named for Perses, or that Media was named for Medea.
      But rather that Perseus and Medea were created for the Potemkin "Greek Mythology" to refer to these empires, and contextualize them within Hellenic culture.

      Judaism tried the same with its table of nations that was remarkably contemporary to 500 BC even though it allegedly described the progenitor patriarchs from 1000s of years earlier.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Can you actually prove any of this though

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Yeah, just look at the successor states that rose after the collapse of Seleucid power. The Arab tribes. Etc.
          Now, explain it this way: the Macedonians never controlled a unified empire and was constantly fighting against these small fiefs throughout the Hellenic era.
          This now explains everything much better.

          Other proof would be documentary, showing too much consistency between Greek literary texts. Or the correspondence of Greek mythological commentary with the religions of Asia, and how they are treated, and why and how the treatment is incomplete.
          Meaning Greek religion can't be explained endogenously, so by criteria of embarrassment why include all these other entities such as the Titans?
          Because Greek mythology was propaganda designed to supplant former beliefs and obfuscate them to future generations.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm asking you to prove your statements with evidence not just say things at me without any source.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No.
    I am actually familiar with them.
    It's actually you that are not.
    For example:
    >The idea is that Phoenicians hired Greek and primarily Macedonian mercenaries to restore a fragmented Persian Empire.
    Why would the Phoenicians want to do that?????
    That doesn't even make sense.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Because they had become wealthy from trade in the West and the Persian Empire was collapsing so they sought to establish a stable order for the middle and East.
      Since their ancestors were kings of the twin empires of Egypt and China, the Yellow Emperor.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Another lie is that Alexander's empire ever existed.
    It was a gradual spread of mercenary Macedonian camp-towns that the Phoenicians paid artisans and scribes to go to and spread the corporatized "Hellenic" literature and culture.
    Persian successors existed and battled alongside mercenary Macedonian warlords.
    The Seleucids of Antioch controlled Babylon on and off and would mint coins whenever they hit temporary high water marks. This was propaganda even then, to hint that they held more power than they did.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Can you actually prove evidence for this?
      Any kind, of it would work.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        If you knew history at all, then you would at least admit that my description of the Seleucid era almost corresponds perfectly with history's already existing understanding of it.
        So then it becomes a question of fitting Alexander in and how well he actually fits.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What about Alexander then?
          Was he a greek fiction/propaganda, half-fiction/propaganda, or real?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            He was Paris. The son of the River God Pan merged with the Solar Bull.
            The Phoenicians funded Macedonian mercenaries to go settle and pacify the East (and Egypt).
            Alexander was their answer to Mithras/Hadad.
            Once the warlords consolidated power, and some of the Greek literature had been created, they made an alliance and this included the creation of the Alexander myth.
            The Diadochi calling themselves Basileus is when the Hellenic Era actually begins. We have to identify a period of cooperation following this and that's when the Alexander story was created.
            The coins would already have been created since Alexander was the Greek Mithras.
            I would say Seleucus was the one who commissioned the Alexander saga. At his peak he was the last living of that generation so it bolstered him. He was also the nearest to actually controlling an empire the alleged size of Alexander's.
            I think the Alexander saga was invented to help justify a Seleucid empire which would become the size of the imaginary Alexandrian empire.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Based Miles W. Mathis reader. Do you really think that thalassocracy and the largest commercial empire in the world disappeared overnight? Have you ever wondered why the Greek sieges of the Phoenician cities, the richest in the world, were so quick compared to those of even smaller places? Why did Phoenician princesses marry the Persian king but supposedly disappear overnight? Why did ancient oracles sometimes function as glowies? What are the consequences of the Phoenicians owning the largest gold mine in Macedonia and linked to the founding dynasty of Epirus? What happened to your commercial network that officially reached England at a time when it was supposedly all bushland?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Bingo.
      Alexander's conquests were fiction.
      I explained it ITT but for summary

      1) The Persian empire was collapsing (empires are hard + the Scythians)
      2) Phoenicians were richer than ever.
      3) Macedonian mercenaries were the best. Greeks were also great organizers, builders, warriors generally. Plus they were potential Western rivals. PLUS they were already culturally subverted with Phoenician/Minoan/Danite ocean serpent cults like the Delphi Oracle.
      So the goal was to send Greeks East.
      4) Greek mercenaries established camp-fort towns. Phoenicians patronized a unified Greek literature and culture. It supplanted local culture. They used "Alexander" the Son of God in their coins to promote this new culture.
      5) The most successful mercenary warlords consolidated until a few called themselves "Basileus"
      6) Seleucus commissions the fictional saga of Alexander's conquests, using the mascot "Alexander", and having his empire roughly correspond to Seleucus's including his remaining ambitions.
      7) In the game of Hellenic culture, Alexander's story had mass appeal, and in its own way bolstered the other basileuses.
      8) Others tried to copy this game. Alexander Yannai was the Hebrew attempt at a national hero Son of God (David - their god in Judea).
      9) Rome did it with Caesar.
      10) Izates bar Munbaz was the Assyrian version of this and his myth was appropriated into Christianity as Christ.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Alexander's conquests were fiction.
        That cannot be possible.
        How do you explain, The Anabasis of Alexander by Arrian.,Ptolemy's biography of Alexander, Niarchus book, or the Indica by Arrian?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What is this baby's first historiography lesson?
          Seleucus paid for the original saga of Alexander's life, Ptolemy II embellished it.
          The rest are ancient court historians trying to make their mark.

          What, do you think Doris Kearns Goodwin's books on Lincoln should be used by future historians in their quest for the truth?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about these non greek texts that mention him? :
            >Zoroastrian texts: Book of Arda Viraf
            >They say that, once upon a time, the pious Zartosht made the religion, which he had received, current in the world; and till the completion of 300 years, the religion was in purity, and men were without doubts. But afterward, the accursed evil spirit, the wicked one, in order to make men doubtful of this religion, instigated the accursed Alexander, the Rûman,[19] who was dwelling in Egypt, so that he came to the country of Iran with severe cruelty and war and devastation; he also slew the ruler of Iran, and destroyed the metropolis and empire, and made them desolate.[20]
            >The Bible: 1 Maccabees
            >Daniel 8:5–8 and 21–22 states that a King of Greece will conquer the Medes and Persians but then die at the height of his power and have his kingdom broken into four kingdoms. This is sometimes taken as a reference to Alexander.

            Alexander is briefly mentioned in the first Book of the Maccabees. In chapter 1, verses 1–7 are about Alexander and serve as an introduction of the book. This explains how the Greek influence reached the Land of Israel at that time.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Your Hebrew sources are post-Seleucid.
            >Zoroastrian
            So fifth century Persia AD.

            You realize that the Hebrew tale of Alexander meeting the priest is plagiarized from the tale of Alexander at Siwa, right, since the priest makes the exact same prophecy? Right?

            I mean, you are capable of historiographical analysis? You do realized that sources have contexts and dates of production? You're not merely citing them, right?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Im saying that there is non greek sources, therfore that proves Alexander existed, and he's not a greek invention.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Wow, this is a moronic argument. That's not actually how sources work.
            You should be banned permanently from this board for being just that moronic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >>A dedicatory inscription to Olympian Zeus by Philonides of Crete in which he is mentioned as King Alexandros' hemerodromos (cursor) and bematist of Asia.
            >A dedicatory inscription to Apollo was found at Toumbes Kalamotou, Thessaloniki regional unit ; it records a list of priests of Asclepius who had fulfilled their duties from the time when King Alexandros gave Kalindoia and the villages around to Makedones.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Prove they are pre-Seleucus and not the bandwagon joining into his convenient legend in order to establish authority.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is literally what one of them says:
            >When Alexander threw down with spear the Tyrian island

            >he honoured Herakles with games and prizes.

            A>ntigonos son of Kallas,there,first of hetairoi,

            >was crowned with double garlands in hoplite race
            Greek version:
            >henika Alexandros Tyrian dori neson ereipsas

            >Heraklea timais euxen aethlophorois

            >Antigonos Kalla dissous tothi, protos hetairon

            >hoplitou stadiou t' amphetheto stephanous
            This is obviously pre-Seleucid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about the royal/military letters that Alexander wrote?
            We have some remaining fragments of them.

            >The several letters attributed to Alexander in the Alexander Romance cannot be taken at face value and certainly do not represent the original form or words of any actual letters that might lie behind them.[1] Among the literary creations of the Romance are Alexander's correspondence with his mother, Olympias; the Persian king, Darius III; his tutor, Aristotle; the city of Athens; the Kandake, an African queen; and the legendary Amazons.[5] A letter to Olympias, corresponding to that in the Romance, is also mentioned in Arrian.[4] The apocryphal letter to Aristotle on India circulated independently and widely, being translated into many languages and accepted as authentic throughout the Middle Ages.[6]

            So you're kind of making the point that I'm trying to make which is that Alexander's legend is a literary fiction invented by the "Diadochi". Since everything about his life was used very effectively toward that end by so many.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >There are also numerous inscriptions written in Greek, Egyptian hieroglyphics, and other languages mentioning Alexander that are contemporary to Alexander’s own lifetime. For instance, here is an inscription dating to c. 330 BC from the city of Priene commemorating Alexander the Great’s dedication of the Temple of Athena Polias there. The inscription clearly reads in Ancient Greek: “King Alexander dedicated [this temple] to Athena Polias.”

            >This inscription is currently on display in the British Museum. You can visit it there any time you like. If Alexander the Great never existed, then how did he dedicate a temple to Athena Polias at Priene in c. 330 BC?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Because moronic British Historians assumed a priori that Alexander was real, and so therefore when they encountered an inscription of Alexander dedicating a temple, they looked up the court official canon history to find out when Alexander "would" have been in the vicinity and then dated the inscription accordingly.

            Or, wait, you tell ME the dating methodology.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about the royal/military letters that Alexander wrote?
            We have some remaining fragments of them.

            So we're at least clear that there are no surviving actual letters written by Alexander's hand, regardless.
            You might want to qualify you position a bit.

            Referencing pre-Seleucid events is not the same thing as a source being pre-Seleucid.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Then you have to take into account the hundreds upon hundreds of surviving coins with Alexander the Great’s name and face on them, some of them contemporary. Here is a silver coin with Alexander’s face on the obverse and his name clearly written on the reverse, minted c. 333 – c. 327 BC in Kilikia while Alexander was still alive:

            >So, if Alexander the Great did not exist, why were people minting coins with his name and face on them during his lifetime?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I explained this.
            Alexander was part of a Macedonian bridge cult that was a result of Persian rule there. He was the Greek Mithras.
            When they were hired to pacify the Silk Road, the Macedonian mercenaries brought their cult figure with them.
            Some coins famously have Alexander having horns.
            Do you think he had horns IRL?
            Or maybe is this his role as Son of God AKA Pan.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Let's talk about an actual king in history.
            King Omri of the Israelites.
            On the black stela of Shalmanessar is a reference to the defeat of Omri.

            This invokes the criteria of embarrassment. It's HUMILIATING for Omri, so clearly Shalmanessar III is inscribing this to emphasize his own power.
            The stela is not connected to any date or power or context that needed to know the bible, or cared about it.
            Thus, it is highly probable that some Omri existed.

            In contrast, some inscriptions of King David are suspect because they reference the "house of David". David could be a euhmerized god, a version of Hadad. They're not embarrassing to David, so they could be embellishing the name of David and his clan.

            Omri's mention is embarrassing so likely he was a real guy.

            Alexander has no such references. No boring, or generic, but supportive evidence.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Coins, Epigraphs, etc *exist

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, Alexander is their cultural divine. The icon of their race. The mascot, the demigod of their religion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If all this evidence has failed to persuade you that Alexander the Great really existed, there is also this:
            >Land bridge of Tyre
            >Land bridge of Tyre
            >LAND BRIDGE OF TYRE
            >Do you know what this is?

            >This is the site of the ancient city of Tyre. As you can see, now it is on a peninsula attached to the mainland, but it was not originally. Originally, Tyre was on an island off the coast, but Alexander the Great, during his siege of Tyre in 332 BC, built a land bridge from the coast to the island.

            >Eventually, over time, that land bridge became larger and Tyre became permanently linked to the coast of Asia.
            If Alexander the great didn't exist, THEN HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THAT?????

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah and Westeros was connected to Essos by a land bridge until the Children of the Forest summoned the hammer of the waters.
            Wow, so maybe a geographical feature's existence is attested to a divine figure, then euhemerized and inserted into history.

            It's like you've never read actual history, just bullshit court narratives.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            But we have geological evidence that the bridge wasn't even there prior to the 330 BC's.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Then the geological evidence was fabricated by Je-sorry I mean Macedonians

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No, a myth was invoked to explain a natural event. Using popular contemporary mythology in the popular culture.
            Fricking moron I mentioned Westeros you are so dumb.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Are you moronic??
            I clearly proved with the bridge that Alexander existed.
            No, no.
            You cannot even deny that by just saying "oh the geological evidence is also fake" you moron.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Friendly fire, I'm just poking fun at the schizo mate

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Ah, sorry.
            Still he's wrong and i proven Alexander with that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Friendly fire, I'm just poking fun at the schizo mate

            Why did the Herodians spend so much money building up Sidon and Berytus, and spend so much time there, when they didn't rule there?
            WHO ruled there?
            Hmm.....
            Byblos was the ancient capital, so how did Tyre and Sidon rise?
            Why did Carthage dominate.

            Nah, you are too moronic. Pearls before swine. I'll stick to the topic.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Friendly fire, I'm just poking fun at the schizo mate

            I've noticed a lot of historygays are very homosexual.
            They are personally ego-invested in Alexander and Rome and so forth. As if their male worth is connected to these wieners.

            Pity. Whence the true historian?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Pity. Whence the true historian?
            Its definitely not you.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Friendly fire, I'm just poking fun at the schizo mate

            No, idiots.
            The natural accretion of detritus forming the bridge and changing Tyre's defensive prospects was attributed to the popular cult figure of the time and his divine power from beyond.

            You really think there was just an island for hundreds of years but then some great adventure dude showed up and made a bridge and then it lasted for hundreds of more years?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.
            Wouldn't be the first time that an army changed a landscape.
            The Romans also did that a lot in history.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but then some great adventure dude showed up and made a bridge and then it lasted for hundreds of more years?
            Yes

            Lol, moron homosexuals.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >but then some great adventure dude showed up and made a bridge and then it lasted for hundreds of more years?
            Yes

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Exactly.
            It's a moronic question to ask.
            Since he's underestimating the power of armies changing a place, just to conquer it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            1) It was not militarily important
            2) The official story is that the causeway only worked because the sandbar was *this* close to forming a causeway anyway.

            Or... maybe the land bridge formed naturally and was attributed to Alexander as it occurred during the great diffusion of Hellenic culture.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes.
            Wouldn't be the first time that an army changed a landscape.
            The Romans also did that a lot in history.

            https://www.livescience.com/1523-mystery-solved-alexander-great-defeated-tyre.html

            1) Not militarily important
            2) The geological evidence shows the sandbar was forming before Alexander's arrival he just "helped" it

            Maybe it just emerged around that time and was later attributed to the cult figure?
            Just like the fake story of the Hebrew priest talking with Alexander.

            It doesn't matter that there are vastly more fake stories about Alexander than allegedly real ones?
            Doesn't that sort of imply that Alexander being fake was sort of easy and the precedent is well established?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Whatever.
            Here's more irrefutable evidence for Alexander the great:
            >Alexander Dates in Lydian Inscriptions:
            >LW 3 and 50, the two Lydian inscriptions mentioning the Macedonian king Alexander in the date formula, have been dated 330/29 and 323/2 BC in the past on the basis of the dates in Babylonian cuneiform documents. Thanks to new insights in the Babylonian evidence, it is now clear that the cuneiform documents were dated to Alexander's Macedonian regnal years. The dates of the Lydian inscriptions LW 3 and 50 have therefore to be shifted to 333/2 or 332/1 BC and 325/4 or 324/3 BC. As a result, no posthumous dates for Alexander the Great are attested in the Lydian documentation.
            >Egyptian carvings of him:
            >We also have mentions of Alexander in Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions. Here is an Egyptian inscription dating to c. 332 BC with Alexander the Great’s name written in Egyptian hieroglyphics:
            >Egyptian carving depicting Alexander addressing the god Min from the Luxor Temple in Luxor, Egypt. His name is inscribed over his head in Egyptian hieroglyphics, clearly indicating that this is supposed to be him:

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're shit at historiography
            first source: literally they take post-Seleucus babylonian sources and use them to date Lydian inscriptions. That is shit methodology. Science and academy is full of horseshit like that.

            second source: You realize Alexander was the macedonian mercenaries' GOD right? So putting him in temple inscriptions next to Min the Egyptian god (that you think is a meds taking moment to compare to MINos of Crete), is not proof of shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about this then:
            >Bactrian inscription:
            >There is a contemporary administrative document from Bactria, written in Aramaic, that records the moment of Alexander's arrival in Bactria in pursuit of the main assassin of Darius III, Artaxerxes V or Bessus. Indeed, the same documents record the moment that Bessus reached Bactria too, and as the documents both name him as King Artaxerxes and Bessus we have absolute confirmation about his status as a usurper.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is the Bactrian king using the Seleucid Alexander Romance which was literarily popular.

            Where is this document? Is there a papyrus which survived and can be dated somehow? Does it reference Alexander with criteria of embarrassment or ignorance showing that it is not a product of the Alexander Romance but a genuine administrative product?

            The murder of Darius is ESSENTIAL to the Alexander Romance in terms of Persian administration. Referencing it is merely referencing the literary romance.
            Alexander decreeing that XYZ sheep and XYZ mountain be exchanged would be more compelling.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Tajikistan greek letters:
            >Ancient Greek letters carved into a rock were found in a mountainous region of Tajikistan, Central Asia.
            >In particular, a message was written on a stone that, according to Nicholas Sims-Willions, an expert in the study of the Bactrian language, means "This is the... of the King of Kings, Vima Taktu". Due to the natural landscape of Tajikistan, archaeologists do not usually have the opportunity to discover new monuments. Since the surrounding area is inaccessible, local people offered to help archaeologists to collect information.
            >In 1932, a local shepherd found a basket of documents on Mug Mountain, which he brought to the archaeologists, who then learned that it was the first written text of the historical Sogdian language, which led to the discovery of the ancient settlement of Penjikend. Sogdiana (formerly Transoxiana) was a province of the Achaemenid Empire of Persia. Although the Sogdian states were never politically united, they were concentrated around the capital city of Samarkand.
            They prove Alexander was in the place we now call Tajikistan.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Black person, Greeks ruled that area. These documents were what, papyrii? When where they written? Codices?
            Do you get how national myths work?

            Did 6 million die in the Holocaust or was it more complicated?
            Well, popular culture teaches 6 million died, period.
            So literally anything that happens between 1965 and forever can reference the 6 million and would have a reason to. It doesn't mean it happened.
            The 6 million are a narrative reality for 1965, so that reality can persist historically.
            It doesn't mean it was a reality for 1945, the source period.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >These documents were what, papyrii?
            No, they were literally a rock with greek letters:
            >HOW WAS THE ROCK DISCOVERED?
            >Similar to the shepherd, a resident of a nearby village discovered the engraved rock in the mountains. Bobomulloev Bobomullo, a researcher at the Institute of History, Archaeology and Ethnography of the National Academy of Sciences of Tajikistan, became interested in the news and took it upon himself to investigate it. After detailed examination, it turned out that the inscriptions were written in ancient script. It was located in the northernmost part of the gorge near the Almosis River. According to the man who found the inscription, there were other inscriptions on many different rocks, but due to avalanches, many of the inscriptions were damaged and fell into the mountains.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Again you're bulldozing the nuance and conflating which is typical of apologetics.
            These inscriptions do not pertain to the other source you cited.
            That's poor evidencing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Its literally a rock that says this:
            >ΕΙΔΙΗΛΟ Υ…ϸΑΟΝΑΝϸΑΕ ΟΟΗ-ΜΟ ΤΑΚ-ΤΟΕ/This is the… of the king of kings, Vima Tactu.
            How is this not proof of Alexander?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That rock was made in pre-Seleucid times.
            We carbon dated it.
            You have been absolutely debunked now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No you didn't show that you're just saying that shit.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Lol.
            He left.
            I didn't even get to mention the Afghanistan inscriptions mentioning Alexander's army, contemporary to Alexander's time.
            LOL.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Don't say "Afghanistan"
            We have Sogdiana.
            Bactria.
            Aracosia.

            Please Black person be historically literate.

            Again, we have that
            1) Alexander was the god of the Macedonian mercenaries in whose name they fought
            2) After Seleucus, there was an Alexander Romance, a Golden Legend with Ptolemy II promoted.

            You have to establish that your inscriptions are not invocations of the above, but unique, embarrassing references to a real man.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Also, how on earth you think, Persepolis was burned if Alexander was not real??? :
            >Destruction of Persepolis

            >Diodorus Siculus writes that on his way to the city, Alexander and his army were met by 800 Greek artisans who had been captured by the Persians. Most were elderly and suffered some form of mutilation, such as a missing hand or foot. They explained to Alexander the Persians wanted to take advantage of their skills in the city but handicapped them so they could not easily escape. Alexander and his staff were disturbed by the story and provided the artisans with clothing and provisions before continuing on to Persepolis. Diodorus does not cite this as a reason for the destruction of Persepolis, but it is possible Alexander started to see the city in a negative light after this encounter.[16]

            >Upon reaching the city, Alexander stormed the "Persian Gates", a pass through modern-day Zagros Mountains. There Ariobarzanes of Persis successfully ambushed Alexander the Great's army, inflicting heavy casualties. After being held off for 30 days, Alexander the Great outflanked and destroyed the defenders. Ariobarzanes himself was killed either during the battle or during the retreat to Persepolis. Some sources indicate that the Persians were betrayed by a captured tribal chief who showed the Macedonians an alternate path that allowed them to outflank Ariobarzanes in a reversal of Thermopylae. After several months, Alexander allowed his troops to loot Persepolis.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >an alternate path
            Thermopolyae
            Carrhae

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Here's is more, more, proof of Alexander:
            >Babylonian record:
            >An astronomical diary recording the death of Alexander the Great (British Museum)
            >A diary of space and weather observations from the year 323-322 BC that records the death of Alexander the Great, referring to him simply as "The King". On display at the British Museum, London.
            Don't tell me, you are going to be denying this one, too.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            If it was compiled later, yeah.
            As were the previous examples you used.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            How do you explain the creation of the city of Alexandria in Egypt if Alexander didn't exist?:
            >The new city of Alexandria, the first as well as the most famous and successful of many new Alexandrias, was formed by joining a number of Egyptian villages (April 331). Alexander supervised the religious ceremonies of foundation, including Greek-style athletic and musical games (an indication of his intentions to Hellenize those foundations, at least as far as their cultural life was concerned); he thought that the site was an excellent one and hoped for its commercial prosperity. It is quite certain, from an inscription, that early Hellenistic Alexandria possessed a civic council; that and other self-governing institutions such as an assembly probably go back to Alexander’s time. Not all Alexander’s foundations were run on the liberal model, though some were inaugurated with similar symbolic gestures in the direction of Hellenism. One hears of “satraps and generals of the newly founded cities,” a phrase that does not imply much self-government. No doubt some of Alexander’s “new foundations” were little more than military camps, and one should assume that in all the far eastern Alexandrias the native population was forced to perform menial or agricultural tasks.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            More proof of him:
            >From The Khalili Collection of Aramaic Documents:
            >Administrative document from Bactria dated to the seventh year of Alexander's reign (324 BC), bearing the first known use of the "Alexandros" form of his name,
            >A long list of supplies disbursed, dated the seventh year of Alexander the Great's reign, 324 BC.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Babylonian chronicle:Alexander Chronicle:
            >[3] [Month IVnote (July): Darius the king, from] his throne they removed him. Be[ssus]
            >[4] [sat on the throne and Artaxerxes] as his name they named him,note and Alexander and his troops
            >[5] [pursued Bessus the rebel king. Alexander with] his few troops with the troops [of Bessus made battle.]
            >[6] [Bessus] killed [Darius the king]. The Hanaean troops, his troops, which [...]
            >[7] [... from Babylon (???) to (?) ] Darius, the king, had gone, [were released.]
            >[8] [Month V, d]ay 15] Kidinnu was killed by the sword. In the month VI (September), on the [nth] day [X happened]
            >[9] [Month VII (October): The king was in] the land of Ú-zu-ia-a-nu, a city of the land of Gutium.note
            >[10] [.....]
            >[11] [Month VIII (November): From] the palace of Babylon they brought out their goods
            >[12] [.......... for] the making of the xx [............]
            >[13] [................] for the performance of the festival of Bêl to the [Babylon]ians they gave.
            >[14] [Month IX (25 Nov - 24 Dec): ........]-Bêl, his son, to the office of satrap
            >[15] [he appointed .............] evil to the king thet plotted

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Babylonian chronicles:Alexander and Arabia Chronicle:
            >[1'] [......] he pitched his [cam]p [......]

            >[2'] [......] they? crossed [the river Tigris] to this side and the king [......]note
            >[3'] [... on the river Ti]gris opposite each other [......]

            >[4'] [... Han]ean [troops] to the land of Arabia [......]note
            >[5'] [......] ... numerous gifts of the people of the land [......]note
            >[6'] [... Babyl]on? and the troops of the king from Ba[bylon .....]

            >[7'] [... Ale]xand[er, the ki]ng [......]

            >[8'] [...... ] x he pitched?. The citizens [of Babylon .....]

            >[9'] [......] ... in the Great Gate ..[ ......]

            >[10'] [......] Bêl and Nabû [......]

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Babylonian chronicle:Alexander Chronicle:
            >[3] [Month IVnote (July): Darius the king, from] his throne they removed him. Be[ssus]
            >[4] [sat on the throne and Artaxerxes] as his name they named him,note and Alexander and his troops
            >[5] [pursued Bessus the rebel king. Alexander with] his few troops with the troops [of Bessus made battle.]
            >[6] [Bessus] killed [Darius the king]. The Hanaean troops, his troops, which [...]
            >[7] [... from Babylon (???) to (?) ] Darius, the king, had gone, [were released.]
            >[8] [Month V, d]ay 15] Kidinnu was killed by the sword. In the month VI (September), on the [nth] day [X happened]
            >[9] [Month VII (October): The king was in] the land of Ú-zu-ia-a-nu, a city of the land of Gutium.note
            >[10] [.....]
            >[11] [Month VIII (November): From] the palace of Babylon they brought out their goods
            >[12] [.......... for] the making of the xx [............]
            >[13] [................] for the performance of the festival of Bêl to the [Babylon]ians they gave.
            >[14] [Month IX (25 Nov - 24 Dec): ........]-Bêl, his son, to the office of satrap
            >[15] [he appointed .............] evil to the king thet plotted

            >Babylonian Chronicles
            >Go a hundred years into the Seleucid era
            Yeah fricking moron, they're just citing the made up source that Seleucus commissioned.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Or, maybe seleucus didn't made up Alexander and he actually existed??
            And the babylonian chronicles are just depicting that??
            Couldn't it be that?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            A stela from before Seleucus that describes detailed battle tactics or some administrative action of Alexander would be sufficient proof. There is none.

            I don't think you understand how ancient literature works. It, like today on the chans, is about who can finance flooding the zone. Ubiquity becomes truth. Ubiquity replicates more than scarcity.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about this then:
            Greek epigraphy, that proves Alexander:
            >A Royal Decree of Alexander the Great, as an arbitration on a land dispute between the city of Philippi and local Thracians (presumably of the Edonian tribes), was discovered in a Byzantine basilica at Filippoi (1936) and published in 1984. The inscription, in two columns, bears the names of Leonnatus and Philotas, (possibly the companions), who act as arbitrators who would redraw the boundaries. The units of measurement mentioned, are plethra and stadia.

            ..whatever land given by Philip, to be cultivated by the Thracians, as well the land Alexander gave them....whatever land given by Philip around Siris and Daineros to be possessed by Philippi, the wood at Dysorum not to be sold by anybody, until the delegation of Alexander come back, the swamps belong to Philippi till the bridges.
            >The Lindos Chronicle (or Lindian Chronicle) is an inscription from Lindos, Rhodes, dated to 99 BC. It records dedications made in the temple to Athena at Lindos that had been made before the destruction of the original temple in 392–1.[1] The chronicle is one of the longest surviving Hellenistic inscriptions.[1] It was excavated early in the 20th century by a Danish expedition, which found it used as paving block of the Byzantine church of Saint Stephen, near the theatre of Lindos. It contains decrees of Lindians, as well report on previous dedications of rulers and generals to Athena Lindia.
            >Antigonus (son of Callas) hetairos from Amphipolis, commemorates his victory in hoplite racing at Heraclean games after the Conquest of Tyrus.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >99 BC
            Black person, would you PLEASE follow the assignment

            >Royal Decree
            "Possibly the companions"
            But no name of Alexander doing things.

            You really need to see a shrink. Your schizophrenia is poisonous.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            What about the royal/military letters that Alexander wrote?
            We have some remaining fragments of them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            This is literally what one of them says:
            >When Alexander threw down with spear the Tyrian island

            >he honoured Herakles with games and prizes.

            A>ntigonos son of Kallas,there,first of hetairoi,

            >was crowned with double garlands in hoplite race
            Greek version:
            >henika Alexandros Tyrian dori neson ereipsas

            >Heraklea timais euxen aethlophorois

            >Antigonos Kalla dissous tothi, protos hetairon

            >hoplitou stadiou t' amphetheto stephanous
            This is obviously pre-Seleucid.

            You are moronic it seems

            >Little from the letters written by and to Alexander the Great is preserved today, and much of what purports to be his correspondence is in fact fictitious. The autograph manuscripts are all lost. Only a few official letters addressed to the Greek cities survive because they were inscribed on stone, although some of these are official instructions (writs) and not true letters. The content of others is sometimes reported in historical sources, such as Diodorus Siculus, Arrian and Plutarch, but only occasionally do these sources seem to quote such letters. Only a small fraction of Alexander's correspondence is thus accessible today, and even less of his actual words
            So, the burden of proof is pretty high on this shit.

            >An archive of correspondence was maintained at Alexander's headquarters. Its ultimate fate is unknown, but Plutarch reports in his biography of Eumenes that after Alexander burned down Eumenes' tent, "he wrote to the satraps and strategoi [i.e., governors] everywhere telling them to send copies of the destroyed documents and ordered Eumenes to take them all in."[1] The letter of Alexander to Chios is preserved on stone,[1] as is his edict to Priene, sometimes regarded as a letter.[2] Plutarch cites 31 letters written by or to Alexander. He accepts them as genuine, but modern scholarship is divided.[3] The general opinion has been to assess the purported letters on a case-by-case basis, recognizing that some are forged.
            So even the modern consensus is skeptical on this particular source. It sort of proves my point about what Alexander's legend really was since these sources are already acting how I have described. Appropriating the story of Alexander.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Phillip PROBABLY existed, though as always he could have been a local god and whoever the chief or king was was considered his avatar.

            These archeological proofs support the reality of Phillip's reign.
            However, when it comes to Phillip, his death is HIGHLY literary and if you unpack it you can find where history and elements of cult initiation rituals overlap.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          You do realize that history is a story.
          Historical analysis usually relies on padding out the narrative within historical source documents.
          Those documents can be utter bullshit. Most historians don't care.

          For most of human history, writing down history was expensive. It was only ever done for reasons of state.

          We have coins and archeology but these can be misleading, and on top of that, very sparse.

          Most ancient historians are better described as loremasters. If not court historians themselves.
          For instance, a rising Roman East might get in a "reassert Greek culture" mood deep into the AD. Hence, Arrian.
          >Guyz, remember Alexander?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Phienicians never had any local literature ebaides some shitty primitive religious texts and a few late half african (carthaginian) works, how would they imvent another actual literaturr in a foreign language? That’s stupid. You’re stupid. Later in the post you talk about ancjent elites ruling egypt and china jointly so you’re even dumber than I thought

          https://i.imgur.com/z3Z95yS.jpg

          Based Miles W. Mathis reader. Do you really think that thalassocracy and the largest commercial empire in the world disappeared overnight? Have you ever wondered why the Greek sieges of the Phoenician cities, the richest in the world, were so quick compared to those of even smaller places? Why did Phoenician princesses marry the Persian king but supposedly disappear overnight? Why did ancient oracles sometimes function as glowies? What are the consequences of the Phoenicians owning the largest gold mine in Macedonia and linked to the founding dynasty of Epirus? What happened to your commercial network that officially reached England at a time when it was supposedly all bushland?

          So let's evaluate the importance of this hypothesis.

          I have claimed
          >ca. 4000 BC, Egypt and China were twin kingdoms and a client race we know as "Gauls" inhabited the middle regions to patrol them, until they rebelled, and these were the people called Nephilim or Watchers
          >The Medes were Arians, and Greek history, literature and religion covered up their history, literature and religion.
          I'll add that the Parthi, the Mitanni, Cimmerians and Parsi are all connected to the Gauls who fought against Assyria and so forth.
          That the "Watchers" problem is relevant to the Sea Peoples' invasion and furthermore the fall of Neo-Assyria.

          Thus, consider how relevant a retcon of history would be for the Hellenic era in terms of erasing knowledge of what I wrote above and removing the context for it.
          We even come to the point of losing our sense of what Christianity is or where it came from.

          It's a 5000 year seethe from the invisible college, over that time it lost power because its golems had had enough.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah Greeks were totally owned by the Phoenicians.
      They were barbarians brought in to destroy the Mycenean Gauls who BTFO the semitic merchants.
      Dorics, Achaeans. The remnant Sea Peoples.

      The cult of Alexander unified Greece preceding the Macedonian era.
      Ironically, Persian control of Macedon and the introduction of Mithras inspired the localized Alexander cult.
      So the mercenary warlords going out to police the silk road trade were part of a now defunct religious cult centered on Alexander.
      Seleucus euhemerized Alexander, and Ptolemy II leaned into that so that Alexandria could become a tourist destination for the euhemerized Son of God, which helped his kingdom have legitimacy under Seleucus's scheme.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Phienicians never had any local literature ebaides some shitty primitive religious texts and a few late half african (carthaginian) works, how would they imvent another actual literaturr in a foreign language? That’s stupid. You’re stupid. Later in the post you talk about ancjent elites ruling egypt and china jointly so you’re even dumber than I thought

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah the Yellow Emperor dumbass. Egypt and China were a joint kingdom ca. 4000 BC.
      The Gauls were a client race that patrolled the lands which connected the twin kingdoms. The Watchers/Nephilim.

      Phoenician literature was a national treasure and secret.
      Who do you think controlled the oracle at Delphi?
      Oh, you didn't think Minoan was an actual civilization?
      Minos was the Egyptian god Min, the Labyrinth was an initiation ritual, not a history tale.
      There was a common civilization between Egypt, Crete, Canaan, and Greece.
      The Mycenean Gauls destroyed it.
      As recounted in the tale of the Danaan which also the Libyans recount.
      Zeus's conquest of Egypt and then his war with Dionysus against Cronus in Crete.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Those medicins aren’t gonna take themselves

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yep

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      No.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It obviously is

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *