PDA

View Full Version : Book I:New Chronology


teenage visigoth
06-23-2011, 02:14 PM
Anyone know if the new Book I lists will use the New Chronology (Rohl, James et al)?

If not, I demand to know why. I have 1000 irritated Lukka to back me on this.

-TV

david kuijt
06-23-2011, 02:27 PM
Anyone know if the new Book I lists will use the New Chronology (Rohl, James et al)?


I think Fomenko's New Chronology is much more amusing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Fomenko%29

Regarding Rohl, I quote from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_%28Rohl%29

"The New Chronology, one of several proposed radical revisions of the conventional chronology, has not been accepted in academic Egyptology, where the conventional chronology or small variations of it remain standard.[2] Professor Amélie Kuhrt, head of Ancient Near Eastern History at University College, London, in one of the standard reference works of the discipline, notes that "Many scholars feel sympathetic to the critique of weaknesses in the existing chronological framework[...], but most archaeologists and ancient historians are not at present convinced that the radical redatings proposed stand up to close examination."

In other words, the answer should be no.

And given that Phil is conservative on issues such as Wade-Giles vs. Pinyin, I would be shocked if he changed all the Biblical lists based upon Rohl's ideas.

Tony Aguilar
06-23-2011, 02:36 PM
Isn't there a wheel somewhere that needs re-inventing?

teenage visigoth
06-23-2011, 02:56 PM
I love Fomenko's stuff. It's a shame he left out Bigfoot and Gnomes of Zurich as well. Compelling tinfoil hat reading.

I was reading through the WAB Chariot Wars sourcebook (a dandy if you can grab it second hand and cheep) and was surprised (and not unpleasantly) to see the author Nigel Stillman cleaves to the New Chronology.

So I was thinking, seeing as we haven't seen any Book I lists around...perhaps indeed in her researches SLB has found that the whole time-line of Book I occurred between March 23rd 1921 to May 11 1933. (Someone please contact The Doctor, he'll know what to do...)

Just hoping for a good shock, that's all.

winterbadger
06-23-2011, 04:21 PM
Isn't there a wheel somewhere that needs re-inventing?

Presumably one that weaves as it wills...

Inanna'sBoyToy
06-23-2011, 04:26 PM
Any documentation out there as to whether or not the Sumerians invented cable television?

I got $5 riding on it.

Redwilde
06-23-2011, 04:52 PM
I love Fomenko's stuff. It's a shame he left out Bigfoot and Gnomes of Zurich as well. Compelling tinfoil hat reading.

Ooh, tinfoil hats amplify the government control frequencies :cool
http://berkeley.intel-research.net/arahimi/helmet/

mickw
06-23-2011, 09:51 PM
You forgot Niemitz who argues the darkest bit of the dark ages never happened. Interesting but probably bollocks.

Ecdicius
06-24-2011, 03:02 AM
Anyone know if the new Book I lists will use the New Chronology (Rohl, James et al)?

If not, I demand to know why. I have 1000 irritated Lukka to back me on this.

-TV

I'm with you on this in spirit, but I've mellowed in the practical sense: I can pretty much suit myself as to historical opponent sides. It matters in a super-historical tournament, but not otherwise.

Andreas Johansson
06-24-2011, 06:26 AM
You forgot Niemitz who argues the darkest bit of the dark ages never happened. Interesting but probably bollocks.

There's also Illig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heribert_Illig), who'd like us to think AD 614-911 never happened. Happily, I own no armies that fall wholly into that timeframe.

mickw
06-24-2011, 09:18 AM
There's also Illig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heribert_Illig), who'd like us to think AD 614-911 never happened. Happily, I own no armies that fall wholly into that timeframe.

Leaves my early viking raiders (3:40a) looking a bit sick. Still I could run 'em as a HOTT army.