Reply #66: Here's the utter nonsense:

[muriel_volestrangler]

As a resume we present the follows hypothesis.

1) According to English history of 1-400 A.D. England at that time was a Roman province. English history of that period speaks more about events in Rome itself then in England. It was proved in (other Fomenko essays) that Roman history of that time reflects real events from 9-13th cc. A.D.

2) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 400-830 A.D. appear to describe Rome and Byzantine empire-0. Therefore these chronicles reflect some real events of 9-15th cc. which took place in Byzantine empire.

3) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 830-1040 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-1. These chronicles also reflect real history of 9-15th cc. in Byzantine empire.

4) That chronicles which are supposed now to speak about English history of 1040-1327 A.D. appear to describe Byzantine empire-3 and therefore they reflect real history of 9-15th cc.in Byzantine empire. The name "Anglia" (England) came from the name of well-known Byzantine dynasty of Angels (1185-1204 A.D.)

5) Thus, in this hypothesis we suggest that those ancient and medieval English chronicles which are now available and which are thought by historians to speak about some events from the epoch before the beginning of 14th century, are in fact devoted to certain periods of Byzantine history of 9-15th cc. Roughly speaking, ancient English chronicles are in fact Byzantine chronicles which were taken from Byzantine to England and then modified in a such way that they seem to speak about events in England.

http://www.revisedhistory.org/Investigation-eng-history.htm

He claims that the accepted English history, un to the 13th century, was made up. Plain. Simple. Rubbish. Hadn't you read this before?