Comments by "Alain Portant" (@alainportant6412) on "What happened to Italy's Skyscrapers?" video.

  1. There's a highly concerning load of nonsense regarding the commonly accepted timeline of what we call History today. This is especially flagrant in Europe, with Italy being the most glaring example, with some historians accusing them of having somehow faked their antique past. Consider that the oldest Italian noble family, the house of Orsini, was only founded in 600. You'd think there would have been at least some kind of continuity in the ruling elite of the Roman Empire. After all, the empire ended around 500 with the sack of Rome of in 410 only being 200 years apart. But no, strangely enough none of the Caesars, Augustus and so on, seem to have had any kind of descendancy. Not one noble family survived the fall of the Roman empire. What's that about ? Michelangelo started as a forger of antiques, he would fake "roman statues", bury them in the ground to make them look older, then sell them at a higher price. Adepts of Alternative Chronologies / New Chronologies think that something close to that happened to History during the Renaissance (which literally means ReBirth") around 1400-1500, and that the Roman antiquity is a complete hoax dating back to that era, when they supposedly "rediscovered" antique knowledge, art and techniques from their supposedly glorious antique past, and finally got out of the middle ages thanks to that. At least that's the story. Turns out, it would make a lot more sense if the so called "ReBirth" was simply a "Birth" following a linear progression from the middle ages, starting with the foundation of the house of Orsini in 600, to the so called "Renaissance" starting around 1400. That would explain a lot of things, like why (following the official chronology) your traditional 10-11th century's motte-and-bailey castle found all across Europe, grossly built with wood and stone using rudimentary techniques from that era (basically glorified shacks) cohabited with glorious buildings like the Colosseum of Rome or the Arena of Nimes, France, or even worse, the Pantheon in Greece, supposedly built in -447, clearly made using more modern techniques, and supposedly built more than a 1000 years earlier. Like no one had the idea of replicating those antique monuments until the Renaissance, people just walked by them for 1400 years. This sounds stupid on its face. It would make a lot more sense if those buildings were built during the Renaissance, just like other similar buildings from that era, then given an antique past afterwards for some of them. I need to double check, but I think the Colosseum didn't appear on the maps of Rome until the Renaissance, and I know for a fact that the Notre Dame cathedral of Paris, supposedly built between 1163 and 1345, does not appear on Sebastien Munster's 1549 map of Paris. Anyway, it's a bit of a rabbit hole and I don't know how deep it goes, but it goes to say, Chronology as the science we know today, only dates back from the Renaissance with Joseph Scaliger, and since nobody could read, it's possible that a lot of nonsense was passed on to the masses through church, word of mouth and so on.
    1