A certain forum in Latvia went all critical today with discussions of Fomenko's "new" chronology.
I do not think the new chronology was discussed in any depth here?
Or was it? I remember only a tangential mention.
I was chatting with an open-minded person who is more knowledgeable about history than I am, and his view is that Fomenko's theory is untenable.
However, the basic idea that history has been tampered with should really come as no shock since those that have been primarily responsible for maintaining chronologies (Kings, that is, States) are also the biggest liars and propagandists of their times. Exaggerating the age of their dynasty, the antiquity of their people, culture and religion, and so on - par for the course for these folks. And, we can additionally surmise that such propaganda would have been competitive, each King trying to outdo the other in the grandiosity of his claims.
Here is an interesting article I was pointed to that makes a fairly solid case for an inflation of three centuries in the AD timeline (contra to Fomenko's 1,000 year inflation!) Unlike Fomenko's approach which attempts to introduce a "scientific" historical methodology (which really isn't scientific, or a methodology when you look closely), the above linked author actually makes a case regarding who might have tampered with history, how and most importantly, why.