Hellenic College Lecture October 17, 1998[1] Modified[2]

Brookline, Mass. USA

Mettius Fufetius, the Latin King of Alba  Longa, claims that the Romans of Tullus Hostilius (672-640 BC), the Latin King of Rome, are no longer pure Greeks, whereas his Albanians (Αλβανοί) are still pure Greeks.[3] Within this context we shall study


© John S. Romanides



This is an outline of early Roman history which evolved into that of the Roman Empire which finally encompassed the whole of Europe and the whole of North  Africa and the Middle  East making the entire Mediterranean Sea a Roman lake. This total area finally also included those peoples who brought about the fall of this Roman Empire which  was replaced in the West by Arabs in Spain and Portugal whose Roman Orthodox Christians, called Melkites [4] were directly  under the Roman Emperor in Constantinople New Rome. The rest of  Medieval Europe was now ruled mostly by Germanic Aristocrats whose slaves were mostly Roman who far outnumbered their masters, as we shall see. In the East we have a dwindling  Roman Empire which finally disappeared in 1453 to become the Ottoman Empire which was brought to an end in 1921 with its mostly Arab offshoots in the Middle East and North Africa. The European part of this reality is in process of re-creating a union a European States. This  present thesis proposes that it may be eventually expanded into something like a United States of Franco-Romania.  It is also based on the thesis that religion itself and nationalism belong to the realm of fantasies with a concrete cure. Like modern science the cure in question belongs to seeing reality for oneself with the help of specialists who can teach others the cure which will allow them to see for themselves.     


a) The Greek-speaking Pelasgians, Arcadians, Lacedaemonians and Trojans who constituted the Roman Nation. The Italici who revolted 91 BC demanding the Roman name but were given instead the Latin name in 85 BC [5] and the Roman name in 212 AD.

b)  The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why?

c)  The first Roman Historians who wrote in Latin.

d) More linguistic indications of the background of the Greek-speaking  Latins, Romans and Sabines.

e) During the 7th century BC the Greek Latins of Alba Longa argued that the Greek Latins of Rome were no longer pure Greeks. This resulted in the absorption of the Greek Albanian  Latins by the Greek Roman Latins.

f)  The Byzantine Empire Lie is clearly exposed by Rumeli of the Ottoman Empire.

g)  The January 31st 1836 London Protocol and the need for the Byzantine Empire Lie.

h) How plans for a Roman Revolution became Hellenic.

i) In any case the joke is on the liars.

j) Francia plus Romania equals The United States of Franco-Romania.

k) The cure of fantasies is the sine quo non of  such a social reality.

L) The use of Alban/Albanian language and Roman/Romanian language.


a) The Greek-speaking Pelasgians, Arcadians, Lacedaemonians and Trojans who constituted the Roman Nation. The Italici who revolted 91 BC demanding the Roman name but were given instead the Latin name in 85 BC [6] and the Roman name in 212 AD.

1. We use the name Greek-speaking peoples for those who made up the world of ancient Greek cultures and dialects and we call them Greeks as a group. Among the latter was not only that of Rome, but also whose Latin language was still a recognizable Greek dialect in  the time of Augustus Caesar (27 BC-14 AD). Indeed at a latter time the rhetorician  Quintilian (c. AD 35-95) regards the "Aeolic" Greek dialect as the closest to Latin.[7] This fact had been borne out earlier also in the time of Augustus Caesar by the Greek historian of "Roman Antiquities," Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c. 60 or 55 BC-c. 21 AD). He writes the following: "The language spoken by the Romans is neither utterly foreign (βάρβαρον) nor perfectly Greek, but a mixture, as it were, of both, the greater part of which is "Aeolic"; and the only disadvantage they have experienced from their intermingling with these various nations is that they do not pronounce all their sounds correctly. But all other indications of a Greek origin they preserve beyond any other colonists.[8]"

2. As we shall see, the primitive Greek Latins, whose capital was of Alba Longa, were conquered by the Romans and absorbed into the Roman nation. Then in 85 BC the Romans gave the Latin name to those Italian tribes who had been allied to Rome and who were also serving in the Roman army. These Italians had revolted demanding Roman citizenship. Instead of giving them the 'Roman name' they were given the 'Latin name.' Finally these Italian Latins were given the 'Roman name' in 212 AD by Emperor Caracalla (211-217).

3. This name Latin had originally belonged to a new Greek-speaking  tribe which came into existence South of the Tiber River after the Trojan War and whose capital was Alba Longa and whose citizens were called Albanians (Αλβανοί). These primitive Latins were composed of the following  tribes: a) Arcadian Greeks, called Aborigines by those who arrived later in the area. b) Pelasgian Greeks who were evidently expelled from the area of Greece by newer Greek tribes who came into Greece from the North with a branch of them going into Italy either directly from the North or who migrated from Greece. c) The Sabines who migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia, Greece. d) The Trojans who were finally settled South of the Tiber River and united themselves to the Aborigines. These Greek-speaking Arcadians, Pelasgians, Lacedaemonians and Trojans constituted what became the Latin Nation of Alba Longa and Rome. The Trojans were refugees from the Trojan War headed by Aeneas. King Latinus of the Aborigines accepted these refugee Trojans into his tribe and gave his daughter Lavinia in marriage to Aeneas. Those peoples united by this marriage called their land Latium in honor of Latinus and themselves Latins and their capital Alba Longa. Then Rome was founded, according to one tradition, by the twin Greek Albanian brothers Romulus and Romos (Remus) at which time some of the Lacedaemonian Sabines joined this new Roman nation.[9]        

4. The very existence of these four primitive Greek-speaking tribes who united and branched off into Albanians and Romans, has been completely abolished by historians who continue to support Charlemagne's Lie of 794 which inaugurated the historical dogma that the Roman language was and is non Greek Latin. This has remained so in spite of the Roman sources which describe Greek as the first language of the Latins from whom the Romans derived. It seems that Charlemagne's Lie of 794 was based on hearsay and the need to cut off West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins from the free East Romans. Frankish Emperor Louis II (855-875) clearly supports Charlemagne's Lie of 794 with the following words: In 871 he writes to Emperor of the Romans Basil I (867-885) that "…we have received the government of the Roman Empire for our orthodoxy. The Greeks have ceased to be emperors of the Romans for their cacodoxy. Not only have they deserted the city (of Rome) and the capital of the Empire, but they have also abandoned Roman nationality and even the Latin language. They have migrated to another capital city and taken up a completely different nationality and language.[10]"

5. A summary of a modern sophisticated version of Charlemagne’s Lie is supposedly based  on the finds of modern archaeology according to which we do not know the origin of the Romans evidently because they had forgotten who their ancestors were. In a subchapter «2. The Early History of Latium. The inhabitants of ancient Latium, so goes this thesis,  had no recollection of their immigration into the country. Roman writers, in a vain endeavor conciliate this native tradition[11] with the random speculations of Greek historians, made the Latins into a conglomerate of Aborigines, Ligurians and Sicels. In the light of modern research they appear as one of the youngest of Italian peoples.[12]»         

6. Let us contrast this claim with Roman historical reality and the process by which Rome became the Empire of the whole Greek speaking world. The primitive Greek Romans were the result of the union of the Greek speaking tribes of Italy. These Greek tribes are the following: The Aborigines,[13] evidently called so by those who arrived in the area later and who came to the area of Rome from Achaia, Greece many generations before the Trojan War.[14] These Aborigines had already accepted into their tribe what was left of the Greek Pelasgians of Italy who had been decimated by a mysterious sickness.[15] Porcius Cato's inclusion of the history of the Pelasgians in Italy and their union with the Aborigines in his De Origines, repeated in detail by Dionysius, is the only mention of them that this writer is aware of. These combined Aborigines and Pelasgians united with some Trojans who migrated to their land and together they became the ancient Greek-speaking Latins whose capital was Alba Longa. A branch of these Greek speaking Latins of Alba Longa, led by the brothers Romulus and Romus, founded Rome on the Palatine and Capitoline Hills. They were joined by some of the Greek Sabines of Italy who had been settled on the adjacent Quirinal Hill. As we have already seen the Sabines had migrated to Italy from Lacedaemonia in Southern Greece.[16] The Romans continued the process of subduing and including the rest of the Greek Latins and Sabines into their political system.

7. Some of the Danubian Celts entered Northern Italy and began pressing upon the Etruscans who turned to Rome for help. But these Celts overran the Roman forces who tried to stop them and drove down toward Rome and defeated the main Roman army in battle and entered Rome in 390 BC. They occupied the whole of the city except the steep Capitoline Hill. The Romans had placed there all of their youth, treasures and records. The older population remained in their homes. After receiving a substantial ransom of gold the Celts withdrew. In order to better protect themselves the Romans subdued the rest of Northern Italy.  The Romans also incorporated into their dominion the Greek Italians of Magna Graecia, Sicily, Sardinia and Corsica This was the extent of Roman territories in 218 BC.

8. The Punic Wars under the leadership of Hamilcar and especially of Hannibal, became the biggest threat to Rome since the Celtic occupation. Hannibal invaded Italy itself with his famous elephants and with Macedon as an ally. Macedon had conquered Rome's traditional Greek allies. Rome went as far as Spain to uproot Punic strongholds there and finally burned Carthage itself. The Romans had crossed over into Greece to liberate her Greek allies from Macedon and ended up conquering the Macedonian Empire and incorporating it into the Roman Empire. Rome also came to the aid of her Galatian and Cappadocian allies by liberating them from King Mithridates VI of Pontus (121/120-63 BC) which resulted in the incorporation of Armenia, Assyria and Mesopotamia into the Roman Empire which now reached almost to the Caspian Sea. In this way the Mediterranean Sea became the central lake of the Roman Empire.

9. It is to be noted that it was the Greek Romans of Italy who finally united all Greek speaking tribes into one nation which had become Latin speaking also.

b) The First Roman Historians wrote in Greek, not in Latin. Why?

10. The first four Roman annalists who wrote in Greek were Quintus Fabius Pictor, Lucius Cincius Alimentus, Gaius Acilius and Aulus Postumius Albinus.

11. As we will see, the first text in primitive Latin was the Code of the Twelve Tables promulgated in 450 BC solely for the plebs. The Greek gentis abided by their own secret laws which they memorized from childhood. This is why the tradition of Roman public laws in Latin resulted from the cooperation between the consuls of the gentis and the tribunes of the plebs. In time so many of the plebs had become fluent in Greek that they became part of the administration of the Greek speaking provinces.

c) The First Roman Historians who wrote in Latin.

12. According to Cicero one of the first Romans who wrote in Latin prose was the Sabine Claudius, Appius Caecus who was consul in 307 and 296 BC. He delivered a speech in Latin to the Senate against making peace with Pyrrhus, the king of Epirus.

13. The first Roman historians who wrote in Latin were Porcius Cato (234-140 BC) and Lucius Cassius Hemina (circa 146 BC).

14. So what language were the Romans speaking and writing before this except Greek?

15. All the above agree with each other on the general outline of Roman beginnings. The reason for this is that they based themselves on the official Roman "sacred tablets" (hierais deltois)[17] which the first historians simply repeated. In other words they were themselves annalists. However, nothing is preserved from these tablets/annals except as repeated in the Roman historians. But, not much of their works has survived, or else may be hidden to facilitate Charlemagne's Lie.

16. From Cato the Gallo-Roman French revolutionaries of 1789 realized that the Romans and Greeks were the same people. Indeed one group of French revolutionaries were called the "Catonistes à la Robespierres." Now the overwhelming majority of Gallo-Romans were re-gaining control of the land occupied for so many centuries by a tyrannical Frankish minority of only 2% of the population.[18] The enthusiasm for Greco-Roman antiquity and hatred for a Papal Christianity used by the Frankish conqueror to completely debase 85% of the population led even to making natural religion supreme over supernatural religion. In spite of Cato's role in the French Revolution only fragments of his work are publicly known. But since Dionysius of Halicarnassus used the same annals as the aforementioned Roman historians one must use Dionysius to reconstruct these lost or hidden sources. Dionysius makes a clear distinction between Greek historians who do not use Roman annals and the Roman historians (and himself) who do. The trick used by some historians, who want to efface the Greek foundations of Roman history, is to mix the hearsay Greek tradition about Rome and the 3 Roman variations on the tradition about the founding of Rome found in their own hierais deltois, i.e. sacred tablets, [19] which were evidently made of a hard material, and then to heap ridicule on the mixture they themselves create.

17. Only a short, but accurate summary account of the foundation annals are reported in Livy who takes for granted that Rome was founded as a Greek city and nation. Evidently this is so because he wrote his history in Latin, whereas the annals were evidently in Greek. Those who wrote in Greek simply copied what they read in Greek. It was the annalistic history of Hemina which laid the foundations for writing Roman history in Latin. Evidently, however, he and his imitators did not make full use of all the Greek texts, like speeches, at their disposal, which they would have had to translate, whereas those who wrote their histories in Greek simply copied the Greek texts directly from the annals. Since the primitive Romans were Greeks why should the official annals be in what we now call Latin. The primitive Latins and Romans were a mixture of Greek Arcadians, Trojans, Pelasgians and Lacedaemonian Sabines.

d) More linguistic indications of the background of the Greek Latins, Romans and Sabines.

18. Apart from the description which the Romans make about themselves, there are also linguistic indications which clearly point to the Greek reality of the ancient Latins, Romans and Sabines. The claim that the name Rome e.g. is simply a place name, which may derive even from the Etruscans, is sheer nonsense.

19. The Greek name "Rome" means "power," "force," "fighting army" and "speed tactics.[20]"

20. The name "Rome" derives from two Greek verbs: 1) roomai which means "to move with speed or violence, to dart, rush, rush on, esp. of warriors.[21]"

21) The name "Rome" also derives from of the Greek passive verb: 2) ronnymi which means "to strengthen, make strong and mighty" and "to put forth strength, have strength or might.[22]

22. The closest Latin equivalent verb is ruo, which is connected to the Greek verb reo meaning "to flow, run, to hasten."

23. Of all the uses of Latin verbs both active and passive there is none that even comes close to meaning "rome."

24. Romans, Latins and Sabines were agreed that the name quiris (sing.) quiretes (pl.) would be their common name which dictionaries translate as citizen. But the Romans had a name for citizens, like the Greek, polites, i.e. civitas. But the names quiris-quiretes derive from the Greek name kouros-kouretes which means young men of fighting age and therefore warriors, "young men, esp. young warriors," Iliad 19. 193, 248.[23] So the Romans, Latins and Sabines called themselves first "warriors" and later "citizens."

25. It is from the original military structure of the Roman army of quiretes that the first government was fashioned into thirty curiae of 1000 men each grouped into three tribes. 

26. Because all three groups of Romans, Latins and Sabines came to Italy by sea from Greece and Asia minor they were warrior sailors and sea faring peoples. It is obviously for this reason that at their weddings they shouted the Greek word Thalassios, sailor, at the groom and not the Latin name marinos.

27. Of the seven hills of Rome the Quirinal, the hill of Mars, was originally that of the Sabines. It was from here that the Roman warriors of Romulus stole their wives. Quiris was not only the Sabine name for a spear, but also for their god of war. They called their god of war "The Warrior" in their Greek language and later Mars.

28. In the Roman tradition Romulus did not die, but ascended deified to heaven without leaving behind his body since he was or became the Quirinus, a god of war or one of the god(s) of war.

29. These are some of the contexts within which the Romans thought and spoke about themselves. No historian has the right to change this. Now whether this version of Roman history is correct or not is entirely another matter. But it remains a fact, however, that the Romans themselves, the Latins themselves and the Sabines themselves believed and wanted to believe that they were Greeks. Not only this, the united Roman nation of Romans, Latins and Sabines, spoke their own common Greek Language.

30. The ancient Roman race called itself by the Greek name γένος, which in Latin became gens, and by which they identified themselves with the Greek race in general and by which they distinguished themselves from non Greek races and nations. It was this term gens which was taken over by the Germanic races to designate their own nobility as contrasted by their conquored West Romans whom they reduced to slavery under the titles of vilains and serfs right up to the French Revolution in 1789.

31. However, in sharp contrast to these serfs and vilains of 1789, the ancestors of the middle class of 1789 were those Romans who had been escaping from the slave camps of their Frankish Castelani (fortress dwellers) beginning in about the 11th century and began forming fortified towns at about the time that these castellani were in turn becoming independent of their royal power. By about the same 11th century the king in turn began offering protection to these independent village dwellers by installing his soldiers within the walls of these towns quartered within a citadel, which on surviving maps are called Frankish Quarters. The king was paid handsomely for this protection, especially since the descendants of these Franchised (adopted Franks and set free) villagers and their cities developed into the very wealthy middle class which made the King of France the most wealthy man in Europe. One sees clearly how both the French middle class and the serfs and vilains of 1789 are direct descendants of the imperial Romans of both Elder Rome and New Rome.   

e) During the 7th century BC the Greek Latins of Alba Longa argued that the Greek Latins of Rome were no longer pure Greeks. This resulted in the absorption of the Greek Albanian Latins by the Greek Roman Latins.

32. In 500 BC there were «about fifty» Roman gens many of which numbered in the thousands  and each one headed by a Patrician member of the senate. The gentes memorized their laws of conduct from childhood and kept their laws a secret among themselves in sacred books.[24] Their slaves and dependents spoke a form of Italian which also evolved into the Latin dialect mixed with Greek. It was these non Greek speaking dependents of Rome who finally forced the Romans to reduce the laws to written form.

33. It was because of the violent protests of these dependents that the Romans produced a text of laws in primitive Latin in about 450 BC. The problem was serious because these dependents did not know the laws by which they were being punished by Roman magistrates. Faced with the revolt of these dependents the senate sent a delegation to Athens to search for a solution to the problem. The result was a set of 10 texts on bronze tables which finally became the "The Code of Twelve Tables." Table 11 forbade the marriage between members of the gentes and the rest of the population of Rome, in other words between those of Greek origin and those of non-Greek origin.

34. The origin of this problem was that for centuries the members of Greek colonies were being assimilated by the barbarians among whom they lived. This was solved by the position that the gentes had to remain a pure race so that the offerings of their priests to their gods might be heard and that the auspices be taken correctly and correct answers received from the gods when making decisions on legal, social and especially military matters.

35. Representing the Plebs in this controversy, "The tribune of the Plebs, Gaius Canuleis, proposed a bill regarding the intermarriage of patricians and plebians which the patricians looked upon as involving the debasement of their blood and the subversion of the principles inhering in the gentes, or families and a suggestion, cautiously put forward at first by the tribunes, that it should be lawful for one of the consuls to be chosen from the plebs, was afterwards carried so far that nine tribunes proposed a bill giving the people power to choose consuls as they might see fit from either the plebs or the patricians. What tremendous schemes had Gaius Canuleis set on foot! He was aiming to contaminate the gentes and throw the auspices, both public and private into confusion, that nothing might be pure, nothing unpolluted; so that, when all distinctions had been obliterated, no man might recognize either himself or his kindred. For what else, they asked, was the object of promiscuous marriages, if not that plebeians and patricians might mingle together almost like the beasts?"[25]

36. «When the consuls had come forth to the people  and set speeches had given place to wrangling, the tribune demanded what reason there was why a plebeian should not be chosen consul; to whom Curtius replied, with truth perhaps, «because no plebeian has the auspices , and that is the reason the decemvirs have forbidden intermarriages, lest the auspices should be confounded by the uncertain standing of those born of them.» At this the plebs fairly blazed with indignation, because it declared that they could not take the auspices, as though they were hated by the immortal gods… [26]»

37. That the debate was not about the rights between rich and poor is shown by the following joke told by Gaius Canuleis in the same speech, "Why, pray, do you not introduce a law that there shall be no intermarrying between rich and poor"?

38. Now some scholars may search for sources which may prove otherwise, i.e. for some reason the primitive Latins and Romans, who were not really Greeks, came to believe that they are Greeks. So what? That would be like proving that black Americans are not real Americans because they are black.

39. Rome, according to Roman tradition, was founded by the Latin twins Romulus and Romos. Tullus Hostilius (672-640 BC), the King of Rome made overtures to the King of Alba Longa, Mettius Fufetius,[27] to unite the Latin and Roman peoples in order to be stronger, mainly defensively and in every other respect. But the two argued about who should become the leader. Mettius argued, among other things, that "it is a fact that the Albanian race has to this day continued the same that it was under the founders of the city, and one cannot point to any race of mankind , except the Greeks and Latins, to whom we have granted citizenship; whereas you have corrupted the purity of your body politic by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines,[28] and some others and that in great numbers too, so that the true-born element among you that went out from our midst is become small, or rather a tiny fraction, in comparison with those who have been brought in and are of alien race. And if we should yield the command to you, the base-born will rule over the true-born, barbarians over Greeks, and immigrants over the native-born."[29]

40. Livy, who wrote his history in Latin, also reports this controversy as a quarrel between two Greek-speaking Latin States of the very same Trojan race. The third king of Rome after Romulus and Numa Pompilius, and after an interregnum, was Tullus Hostilius. «This monarch, writes Livy,  was not only unlike the last, but was actually more warlike than Romulus had been.» Tullus manipulated circumstances in such a way that he trapped the Albanian envoys into admitting that they had instructions to declare war should restitution be denied them.  «To this Tullus replied: ‘Tell your king that the Roman king calls the gods to witness which people first spurned the other’s demand for redress and dismissed its envoys, that they may call down upon the guilty nation all the disasters of this war.’ With this answer the Albanians returned to their city, and both sides prepared for war with the greatest energy - a civil war, to all intents and purposes, almost as if fathers were arrayed against sons; for both were of Trojan ancestry, since Lavinium[30] had been transplanted from Troy, Alba from Lavinium, and from the line of the Albanian kings had come the Romans. Still, the issue of the war made the struggle less deplorable, for no battle was fought, and when only the buildings of one of the cities had been destroyed, the two peoples were fused into one.»[31] In  other words the differences between the Greek-speaking-Latin  Albanians  and the Greek-speaking Latin Romans had been finally settled not by war, but by a contest between Albanian triplet brothers on the one side and Roman triplet brothers on the other side.[32] The Romans won and so demolished  the buildings of the Latin Capital of Alba Longa and transported the  whole population of Albanian Latins to Rome and thus reunited both Latin peoples once again into one nation. The six  patricians of  the six gens[33] of Alba Longa were added to the Roman Senate. The most famous member of the Albanian gens of  the Julii  was Julius Caesar.  So whether the falsifiers of Roman history like it or not Julius Caesar belonged to a Greek-Trojan-Latin gens/γένος.

41.) Anyone can trace this historical reality by using the indexes at the end of the original texts of Roman history, such as Livy and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, both of whom give us a continuous narrative where such names as Latins, Romans and Sabines abound. In sharp contrast to such original sources, we have writings of contemporaries who since about 1954 have become specialist in deliberately circumventing the original Roman sources by claiming that archeology must be given precedence over surviving written sources.

42) One of the best examples of such a method is to put such names as «Latium, Latins» side by side in the index and proceed on the assumption that we have a geographical area whose original inhabitants are unknown therefore making the use of archaeology necessary in an attempt to uncover the series of inhabitants who occupied the area. Thus Latium becomes an area of archaeological study as though one is not sure which peoples occupied the area in antiquity. THE CAMBRIDGE ANCIENT HISTORY, VOLUME VII. THE HELLENSTIC MONARCHIES AND THE RISE OF ROME (1954) is an example of the use of such a method. The Roman History part of this volume covers pages 312 to 857. In the General index one finds «Latium, Latins» on page 956 which begins with «Aeneas and, 363 sqq. one assumes that the whole title is «Aeneas and Latium, Latins.» So one turns to page 363 sqq and there finds «CHAPTER XI, vi .THE FOUNDATION LEGENDS» Hugh Last of Oxford concludes that «The legends  which grew up round the origin of Rome have so slight a value as evidence for the history of the city that they can claim little space: all that is needed is to make their irrelevance plain.» The first question to raise is whether the writer is describing the sources and evaluating them, or distorting them in order to fit into the realm of 18th  century British, French and Russian plans to make history fit their plans to reorganize the maps of parts of Eastern Europe and the Middle East according to Father Charlemagne Lie of 794 and its variations.    

43. But the Roman historians themselves tell us a completely different story than the likes of scholars like Hugh Last. Dionysius summarizes the reports of the Greek origin of the Romans by the Romans themselves as follows: «But the most learned of the Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato (who compiled with the greatest care the ‘origins’ of the Italian cities) Gaius Sempronius and a great many others, say that they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia[34], and that they migrated many generations before the Trojan war.[35]» And there is nothing in Livy to contradict this as we already seen when he describes the controversy between the Albanians and Romans which led to destruction of Alba Longa which led to the fusion of the Greek Albanian Latins with the Greek Roman nation. It would seem that a normal person would choose the accuracy of Romans about their own history as over against scholars with hidden agendas who seems to be intent on insisting on variations on Father Charlemagne’s Lie.              

44. Finally all Greek-speaking  Latins and Greek-speaking Sabines either joined or were united to this Roman Nation which still ended up divided into Patrician gens and tribes of non Greek origin led by Tribunes with the Latin language having become the main medium of Roman legislation.

45. When we move from the 7th century BC to the middle of the 5th century BC we see «…the Plebes were being stirred up again by their tribunes who were claiming that the best political institutions for free men is equal freedom of Speech (ισηγορία) by which they demanded that all affairs both private and public should carried on according to laws. For at that time there did not exist as yet among the Romans an equality of laws or rights, nor were were all their priniciples of Justice committed to writing.’’ This led to the adoption of the Code of the Twelve Tables already covered. This also led tadition that the legisation being done in common by the Consuls of the Patricians and by the Tribunes of the Plebs was done mostly in Latin and the common debates were conducted in Latin evidently the Greek language having become the private domain of the gentes. However, when the Latin speaking were had become proficient in Greek then Greek visitors began addressing the Roman assembly in Greek. Indeed when the Social Wars began k) The Frankish Papacy of 1046 and Norman Britain of 1066.

46. As we already noted, the population of France in 1789 included 2% nobility, 13% franchised middle class and 85% vilains and serfs.[36] The latter 85% were enclosed within slave camps and guarded from escape by some 40,000 castles. These serfs and vilains had been isolated from each other for so many centuries that they ended up speaking their own local patois of which some 35 are recorded and still spoken locally. This reality forced the 85% of the population to learn and adopt the language of their former oppressors. This clearly means that there had to have been a very serious reason why the Frankish military kept so much of the population isolated from each other. It seems that the best explanation of this phenomenon of so many save camps up to 1789 is to be found in the Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals which appeared  in 850.[37] These tampered with and thus forged documents, supported a Church structure which put the Frankish bishops directly under the control of the Pope of Rome and his curia, both of which were still Roman nationals, and therefore under the rule of the Roman Empire and its Roman Emperor in Constantinople New Rome. At the time the Franks accepted these Decretals as genuine and argued that they were valid locally only within the Roman Empire, a difficult argument to maintain when a small number of Franks were ruling over a far superior number of Romans. So the Franks made their final decision to act decisively which resulted in their final takeover of the Papacy by putting on the Papal throne their own lackeys from 1012 to 1046 when they permanently got rid of Roman Popes and their curia and became themselves the Pope of Rome and his curia.


47. However, this New Frankish Papacy began consolidating power in the West by means of the Norman invasion of England 1066. While the Norman Franks were in process of expelling the Roman army from Southern Italy and of helping the Italo-Franks wrest the Papacy from the Franconian emperors, their Duke William of Normandy invaded England with Pope Alexander’s blessing in 1066. He had his Lombard friend, the "Blessed Saint" Lanfranc, the pope's teacher, installed as the first non-Roman /Saxon Archbishop of Canterbury in 1070, and together they replaced all native bishops with Franco-Latins. All Celtic and Saxon bishops and abbots were dismissed en masse[38] and sentenced to prison to die premature deaths by torture and starvation.[39] The new noblemen bishops from the Frankish Empire were in turn killed by the people whenever opportunity presented itself.[40]Indeed the Saxons and Celts celebrated the death of Lanfranc in 1089 by launching their third and most severe revolt against the foreign intruders.[41] The most famous of the Saxon revolutionary leaders against the Normans was Robin Hood. He had become ill and was taken by Little John to a nunnery where someone recognized him. The Norman nun who was curing him by bloodletting converted this cure into an assassination by letting him bleed to death. Little John and his men escaped to Ireland to continue their war against the Normans.[42] That Robin Hood and his men were fighting against bad King John in favor of good King Richard is an interesting and clever fable indeed. In any case such Norman reforms by military might became crusades in both East and West. They ultimately provoked the Protestant Reformation and met with little success among the East Romans and some among the Slavs.


48.This tradition of killer bishops, clergy and monks was given its near final theological foundation by "Saint" Bernard of Clairvaux in his sermons "De Laude novae militiae ad milites Templi"[43] in which he argues that the religious Knight Templer "who kills for religion commits no evil but rather does good, for his people and himself. If he dies in battle, he gains heaven; if he kills his opponents, he avenges Christ. Either way, God is pleased."[44] Its final form was given by the Inquisition which condemned to death but usually turned executions over to laymen.           

f)  The Byzantine Empire Lie is clearly exposed by Rumeli of the Ottoman Empire.

49. Between 330 and 1453 Constantinople New Rome was the Capital of the Roman Empire and then continued to be, with same name, that of the Ottoman Empire. She was never the capital of any Byzantine Empire. The whole European part of the Ottoman Empire was called «Rumeli» which means «Land of the Romans Even the Ottoman conquerors of the Roman Empire of New Rome ignored any Byzantine Empire. The so-called Byzantine Empire never existed. Those who say and write such nonsense are either intentional liars with a hidden agenda or else brainwashed by the creators of this Byzantine Empire which never existed. Those who hide the Roman reality of this Empire are agents, knowingly or not, of the Frankish propaganda of Charlemagne who decided in 794 that the Roman Empire is a "Greek" Empire in order to hide it from West Romans enslaved to the Franco-Latins. Then this so-called "Greek" Empire had to become a "Byzantine" Empire in order not to confuse the Modern Hellenic State with the Greek Empire invented by Charlemagne in 794. This resulted in a clear distinction between Hellenes and Greeks in international law. Hellenes are the citizens of modern Hellas and the Greeks are those who are called Greeks by  Western powers, but who continue to call themselves Romans in their native languages. For example, the four Roman Patriarchates of Constantinople New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem call themselves Roman in Greek, Turkish  and Arabic. The Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem call themselves Roman in Arabic, but Greek in European Languages because of French and British occupation after World War I. Only Constantinople New Rome was excepted from such treatment because never occupied by the British and French who faithfully apply their Great Father Charlemagne's lie of 794 to the Roman Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem.

g) The London Protocol of January 31st 1836 and the need for the Byzantine Lie.

50. This Protocol makes a clear distinction between Greeks and Hellenes,[45] although historically they mean the same peoples, the first being the Latin term and the second term being the Greek term for the same reality. However, in this Protocol the Greeks are those who have been calling themselves Romans in their native languages, in spite of Charlemagne's lie of 794, and the Hellenes are those who are becoming the citizens of the New Hellenic State invented by the British, French and Russians as a result of their so-called Hellenic Revolution against the Ottoman Empire. In the Greek language this revolution began as a Roman revolution and ended up as a Hellenic Revolution as planned from the very beginning by these British, French and Russians who maneuvered the guides of this revolution to accept the lie that the Greeks had revolted not only against the Turks, but also against their Roman selves and their own  former Roman Empire which fell to the Ottomans in 1453.  But such a so-called reality would reveal itself for the lie that it is, and provoke laughter, if one would claim that Hellenes had revolted against Greeks and had liberated themselves from a former Greek Empire, now replaced by an Ottoman Empire.  The problem was solved by giving prominence to the already existing term Byzantine over the name Greek. In this way quite a few Hellenes within today's Hellas still support that their ancestors had been enslaved to this non-existent Byzantine Empire represented today by the Ecumenical Patriarchate in Istanbul. This has been a favored position of such Hellenic groups who believe that they are descendants only of the Ancient Hellenes, and of the Communists since they have been and are still continuing to echo Russian positions.

h) Indications of a plan for a Roman Revolution which became Hellenic.

51. As the French Revolution was in its infant stages the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" by Edward Gibbons was being translated by a pseudonym of King Louis himself into French. This history became very popular, not only because the middle class knew that they, the vilains and the serfs were descendants of the Gallo-Romans, but also because the so-called Greek Empire in the East which had fallen to the Ottoman Turks never existed since it was the same Roman Empire composed of Romans like themselves. It was no accident that an a secret organization was established to promote a Roman Revolution within the Ottoman Empire as part of the Gallo-Roman Revolution underway in France. Unfortunately the coordination between this secret East Roman revolutionary organization and the French Government fell to the lot of Napoleon who had taken over the command of the French Army of Italy at war with the Austrian Empire. Thus we find Rhigas Pheraios, one of the chief leaders of the East Roman  revolutionaries, as one of Napoleon's advisors at the signing of the Treaty of Campo Formio in 1797[46] which put an end to the war between France and Austria. In this way Napoleon purposely got the Austrians to take a good look at this East Roman who was about to go to South Rumeli (land of the Romans) with his companions to guide already well organized insurgents to begin their Roman Revolution against the Turks. The reason for this is that Napoleon himself was a fanatic Frank who believed and called himself Charlemagne. At his coronation  as Emperor the statues Kings Clovis and Emperor Charlemagne adorned the Portico of Notre Dame. Indeed his code name among the East Roman Masons was Carolosmanoglou, Turkish for The Son of Charlemagne. In no way was Napoleon about to aid an East Roman Revolution since at the first opportunity he would quell the one still going on in France. So the Austrians captured Rhigas with his companions about to embark for Rumeli and finally turned them over to the Turks for execution.

 52. In 1806 Napoleon met with Tsar Alexander I at Tilsit. Floating on a raft they made secret plans. Evidently one of them was to transform the planned Roman Revolution within the Ottoman Empire into a Hellenic Revolution. The Gallo-Roman Revolution had been already quashed by Napoleon. Evidently the two made plans to bring down the Ottoman Empire, not with one big Roman revolution, but with small ones which ended up with the process of Balkanization. After the death of Napoleon the British joined France and Russia with the known results. The Russians founded some 70 schools in the Balkans in order to create a Bulgarian nation and 120 schools in the Middle East in order to transform the Romans into Arabs. This they did by brainwashing Orthodox into believing that their Arabic name Rum does not mean Roman, but Greek . Also the Balkans were part of the Roman Empire called Romania. Of great interest is the fact that whole European Part of the Ottoman Empire was called Rumeli, i.e. Land of the Romans. This Land of the Romans was called by the name Romania which was the name of the at . The Czarist Russians, the French and the British replaced this reality into Hellas, Bulgaria, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Romania..  

i) In any case the joke is on the liars.

53. The primitive Latins and Romans of Latium, as the reader has already seen, were a union of such Greek speaking tribes as Pelasgians, Aborigines, Sabines and Trojans. This is the football we are passing on to the specialists in Roman, Greek and so-called Byzantine History to play around with. In other words Charlemagne decided in 794 to call the Roman Empire in South Italy and the East the Greek Empire in order to hide it from his conquered Romans in his own provinces of Gallia, Germania and Italia. He did this in order to stop the Roman Emperor in the East from fomenting revolutions among the West Romans against Frankish rule. So he knew that he was lying when he then baptized the South Italian and East Romans as Greeks. In this way the Franks eventually cut off their own conquered Romans within their own provinces of Gallia, Germania and North Italia from the Roman Empire which extended from South Italy to the frontiers of the Abbasid Caliphate. But without knowing it, Charlemagne and his Franks were actually telling the truth when they decided to call the East Romans Greeks. This is so since the primitive Latins, Sabines and Romans were indeed made up of Greek-speaking tribes.

j) Francia plus Romania equals The United States of Franco-Romania.

54. We do not use the names Romans and Franks racially and linguistically as had been done  by the first Greek-speaking Albanian and Roman Latins and by the Merovingian and Carolingian Franks. We use the term Romans and Franks in terms of common citizenship as had happened when the non-Greek Italians were made Romans in 212 AD, as we had already noted. Also we use the name Franks for the mostly Teutonic tribes who conquered the West Romans and especially their ruling nobility. One sees the remains of this structure in the British Parlement still composed of the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

55. Thus we include the following under the name Roman: 1) All East Romans who were called Greeks by the Germanic conquerors of Western Europe because of Charlemange's Lie of 794, as already explained,  and who still call themselves "Romans" or "Romios" in Greek and "Rum" in Arabic and Turkish until today. 2) The descendants of the Romans are also the "non noble" inhabitants of Europe who live within the former provinces of the Roman Empire. Descendants of these Romans are in turn also their descendants who migrated to the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. 3) The whole geographical area inhabited by the aforementioned groups 1) and 2) may be called Franco-Romania since it is predominantly inhabited by a mixture of a small number of Nobilities and a very large number of Commoners of Germanic, Greco-Latin and Slavic races. All of these peoples are now being united by the English language which is nothing more and nothing less than a result of a grand mixture of such languages as Greek, Latin, Germanic and Slavic within a process of development which began almost 2,000 years ago by the primitive Greek-speaking Albanian and Roman Latins of Alba Longa and of Rome who in 212 AD gave the name Roman to the Italian Latins. Then several centuries later the Vandals, Goths, Burgundians, Franks and Lombards took possession of large tracts of the Roman provinces of Africa, Gaul, Spain and Italy. The Vandals were destroyed, the Goths were driven out of Italy and out of Gaul by the Frankish allies of New Rome and took refuge in Spain. But these Franks and Goths finally reduced their conquered Romans to the status of serfs and vilains. Then Slavs were settled in parts of the Balkans not as serfs and vilains, but as candidates for Roman citizenship. The final result of the French Revolution was that 85% of the population of serfs and vilains, of the 13% of middle class and of the 2% of nobility became, theoretically at least, one body of citizens.[47] This means that the real name of France is Franco-Romania. This should be the name of not only of United Europe, but also of her descendants in the Americas, Australia and New Zealand. So this reality should give us The Real United States of Franco-Romania with either the Euro or the dollar as the one united currency.

k) The cure of fantasies is the sine quo non of  such a social reality.

56) Roman Emperor Constantine the Great moved his capital from Rome to New Rome to which the title Constantinople was added. However, he did not adopt a new religion for his empire, but on the contrary adopted the cure of the sicknesses of religion. Charlemagian hatred for Romans and their Empire, perpetuated and maintained for centuries within the hearts of some nobilities of Europe under the names «Greek Empire» and more recently «Byzantine Empire finally put an end to this historical reality by burying it under the name  «Istanbul.» Because of the ignorance of 1) the Franco-Latins who expelled the Romans from the Papacy between 1012 and 1046, of also 2) of the complete ignorance of the Protestant Reformers, and 3) the almost complete ignorance of the Orthodox today, the very reality that Constantine the Great did not adopt a new religion for his empire, but the very cure of the sickness of religion has been lost sight of. Even the fact that Romans became divided between Roman Greeks, meaning pagans, and Roman Christians is not fully appreciated.[48]

One may consult studies related to «The Cure of the Sickness of Religion» at[49]

L) The use of the Alban/Albanian language and the Roman/Romanian language.

57) It is to be noted that the British historians used their reputation as excellent scholars to distort history. For example they call the citizens of modern Romania Romanians whereas these people call themselves Romans in their own language. They do the same with the citizens of Modern Albania whom they call Albanians, but the ancient Albanians they call Albans. It is also interesting that the Greek Language still survives rather strongly among a great segment of today’s Albanian population, who, however, are semi-persecuted since Latinized Albanian is considered the real language of the Albanians and not that of Greek. This in spite of the fact that the language of the primitive Albanian Romans was Greek as we have seen. Even here we find Charlemagne’s Lie at work.

[1] Modified 10/10/98.

[2] Modified again 2/99

[3] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, III, x, 1-6. Mettius Fufetius argued that «…one cannot point to any race of mankind, except  the Greeks and Latins, to whom we (Albans) have granted citizenship; whereas you (Romans) have corrupted the purity of your body politic by admitting Tyrrhenians, Sabines, and some others…» Evidently the Sabines, who were Lacedaemonians, as we shall see, had intermarried with non-Greeks.         

[4] Romans under Arab rule but whose tribal chief was the Roman Emperor in Constantinople New Rome and recognized as such by the Arab kingdoms and later by the Turks who after the fall of New Rome was replaced by the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople New Rome.

[5] The following Italici populi rebelled in 91 BC: Picentes, Vestini, Marsi, Paeligini, Marrucini, Samnites and Lucani  and were granted citizenship in 87 B.C of whom only the Samnites alone took up arms again. Livy, AUC, lXXX. In 90 tin hey defeated Consul Lucius Julius Caesar and were defeated by him (LXXXXXIII). They were defeated again by L. Cornelius Sulla in 89, by Cosconius and Lucanus in 87 etc. In all the Romans fought three major wars against these people. See Dionysius Halicarnassus, RA, XV, First Samnite War was in defense of Campanian Greeks  iii, 1ff. maltreated by dirt poor Roman soldiers appointed to protect them from the Samnites. Second Samnite War Ibid, XV, vii-XVI, I-ii, (4). Third Samnite War Ibid, XVII –XVII.            

[6] The following Italici populi rebelled in 91 BC: Picentes, Vestini, Marsi, Paeligini, Marrucini, Samnites and Lucani  and were granted citizenship in 87 B.C of whom only the Samnites alone took up arms again. Livy, AUC, lXXX. In 90 tin hey defeated Consul Lucius Julius Caesar and were defeated by him (LXXXXXIII). They were defeated again by L. Cornelius Sulla in 89, by Cosconius and Lucanus in 87 etc. In all the Romans fought three major wars against these people. See Dionysius Halicarnassus, RA, XV, First Samnite War was in defense of Campanian Greeks  iii, 1ff. maltreated by dirt poor Roman soldiers appointed to protect them from the Samnites. Second Samnite War Ibid, XV, vii-XVI, I-ii, (4). Third Samnite War Ibid, XVII –XVII.            

[7] Institutio Oratoria, 1, 6, 31


[8] Roman Antiquities I, XC.1.

[9] Plutarch's Lives, Romulus, XVI, "Now the Sabines were a numerous and war like people, and dwelt in unwalled villages, thinking that it behooved them, since they were Lacedaemonian colonists, to be bold and fearless." 

[10] John S. Romanides, "Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine," Holy Cross Orthodox Press 1981, p. 18.

[11] Could refer to anything in the preceding pages 1-30.

[12] M. Cary, A History of Rome, London 1963, p. 30.

[13] Evidently called "the original dwellers" by those who arrived later in the area of what became known as the seven hills of Rome which area had been uninhabitable because volcanic.

[14] "But the most learned of Roman historians, among whom is Porcius Cato, who compiled with the greatest care the genealogies of the Italian cities, Gaius Semporonis and many others, say they are Greeks, part of those who once dwelt in Achaia, and migrated many generations before the Trojan war." as quoted by Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities, I, XI. It is in the light of this that we read Livy's remarks about the Aborigines in his "From the Founding of the City," I, 5-II, 6.

[15] Dionysius, Ibid I, xvii-xxx, 5.

[16] Plutarch's Lives, Romulus, XVI.

[17] Dionysius of Halicarnassus, RA I.LXXIII, 1. These "hierais deltois"(sacred tablets) are usually understood to be the annales maximi kept each year by the Pontifex Maximus. The foundation narratives about Rome's beginnings do not vary substantially from the final tradition. The names involved in the final Roman foundation tradition are basically the same as in the earliest 3 traditions quoted by Dionysius as follows: 1) "Some of these say that Romulus and Romos, the founders of Rome, were the sons of Aeneas, 2) others say that they were the sons of a daughter of Aeneas, without going on to determine who was the father; they were delivered as hostages to Latinus, the king of the Aborigines, when the treaty as made between the inhabitants and the new comers, and that Latinus, after giving them a kindly welcome, not only did them many other offices, but, upon dying without male issue, left them his successors to some part of his kingdom. 3) Others say that after the death of Aeneas, Ascanius, having succeeded to the entire sovereignty of the Latins, divided both the country and the forces into three parts, two of which he gave to his brothers, Romulus and Romos. He himself, they say, built Alba Longa; Romos built cities which he named Capua, after Capys, his great-grandfather, Anchisa, after his grandfather Anchises, Aeneia (which was afterwards called Janiculum), after his father, and Rome after himself. This last city was for some time deserted, but upon the arrival of an other colony, which the Albans (Αλβανοί) sent out under leadership Romulus and Romos, it received again its ancient name."

[18] In preparation for the convocation of representatives of the clerical and lay nobility and of the middle class the king ordered a counting of the total population of about 26,000,000 which resulted in the following breakdown: nobility 2%, middle class 13% and villains and serfs 85%. For these population figures see the edition of Germaine de Staël's book, Considérations sur La Révolution Française, par Tallandier, Paris 1881, p. 610. Jacques Godechot who prepared the reedition of this book cites J. Dupaquier, La population français aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles, Paris (Que sais-je?) 1979. Madame de Staël (1766-1817) was the daughter of Louis XVI's Finance Minister Jacques Necker (1732-1804). This total is also taken from DICTIONNAIRE GENERAL de la POLITIQUE par M. MAURICE BLOCK, NOUVELLE EDITION, TOME PREMIER, PARIS 1873, p. 1023



[19] Just quoted.

[20] H. G. Liddell and R. Scot, "Greek-English Lexicon," at name "rome."

[21] Ibid, at verb "roomai."

[22] Ibid, at verb "ronnyni."

[23] Ibid, at name "kouretes."

[24] Diosysius, RA X.I-IV. Livy, AUC III. IX-XI. 459 BC

[25] Livy, Ibid, IV, 1ff.

[26] Livy, Ibid, IV, vi.1-3

[27] The quoted source used by Livy calls both leaders kings. I, XXII  

[28] A Greek race but not a pure one.

[29] In the year 459BC Dionysius of Halicarnassus’ Roman Antiquities, X.2-5. Livy, AUC, III,

    ix-x, 5-

[30] The first town built by the Trojan refugees under Aeneas with permission from Latinus,

    King of the Arcadian Aborigines. Livy, AUC, I.i.1-6.  

[31] Livy, AUC,  I, xxiii, 1-2.

[32] Livy, AUC, I, xxiv ff.

[33] Livy, AUC,  I, xxx, 2. Julii, Servilii, Quinctii, Geganii, Curiatii, and Cloelii. Dionysius, RA, III, xxix,7. Ιουλίους, Σερουιλίους, Κορατίους, Κοιντιλίους, Κλοιλίους and Γερανίους. 

[34] Greece.

[35] Dionysius, RA, I, xi, 1ff.

[36] See footnote 11.

[37] John S. Romanides, «Franks, Romans, Feudalism and Doctrine, an interplay between Theology and Society, Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1981, pp.20-32. 

[38] For documented sources of the details of the murder of the  Celtic and Saxon Bishops and abbots and their replacement by nobles from the Frankish realms of Francia, i.e. Gallia, Germania and Italia see Auguste Thierry, Histoire de la Conquête de l' Angleterre par les Normands, Paris 1843, vol. 2, pp. 147  (1071-1072), 215-219  (1075-1076), 284, 313-314, 318  (1087-1094); vol. 3, pp. 35  (1110-1138), 214-215 (1203 ).

[39] Ibid.  voI. 2, pp. 55;' 66 (1068 ) 111,145,184 (1070-1072 ), 215 (1075-1076), 240-242 (1082), 313-316 (1088-1089); vol. 3, pp. 35, 44, 47 (1110-1140).

[40] Ibid.; vol. 2, pp. 232, 236 (1080); vol. 3; pp. 27, 36-37; 39 (1110-1138), 55 (1141-1142); vol. 4, p. 349 (1387).

[41] Ibid., vol, 2, p. 315. Robin Hood led a phase of this revolution until he was recognized by Norman nuns who let him bleed to death while curing  him by bloodletting. 

[42] 1189-1194. Accuse des ballades qui nous ont été conservées ne raconte la mort de Robin Hood; la tradition vulgaire est qu’il périt dans un convent de femmes; où un jour, se sentant malade, il était allé demander des secours. On devait lui tirer du sang, et la nonne qui savait faire cette opération, ayant reconnu Robin Hood, la pratiqua sur lui de manière à le tuer. (Percy’s Reliquides of ancient english poetry, vol. I, p.198, 6e cdd.)

Ce récit, qu’on ne peut ni affirmer ni contester, est assez conforme aux moeurs du XIIe siècle; beaucoup de femmes dans les riches monastères, s’ occupaient alors à étudier la médicine, et à composer des remèdes qu’elles offraient gratuitement aux pauvres. De plus, en Angleterre, depuis la conquête, les supérieures des abbayes et la plus grande partie des religieuses étaient d’ extraction normande, ainsi que le prouvent leurs statuts, rédigés en vieux francais (Regula monialium Beatae Mariae de Sopwell, in auctuario, additamentor, ad Matth. Paris, t I,p. 261) : cette circonstance explique peut-être comment le chef des bandits saxons, que les ordonnances royals avait mis hors la loi, trouva des ennemis dans le couvent où il était allé chercher assistance. Après sa mort, la troupe dont il était le chef et l’âme se dispersa; et Petit-Jean, son fidèle compagnon, désespérant de se maintenir en Angleterre, et poussé par l’envie de continuer la guerre contre les Normands, se rendit en Irlande, où il prit part aux révoltes des indigènes Ainsi fut dissoute la dernière troupe de brigands anglais qui ait eu un objet et un caractère politique, et qui mèrite par là une mention dans l’histoire.

[43] Migne, P. L.182, .921-940.

[44] As summarized in The History of  Feudalism,  edited by David Herlihy, 1970, p. 282-283.


[45]  The text is as follows: "Toujours  entendu que, seront considérés dès-à-présent commes Hellènes, et prendront rang dans la catégorie de ceux qui profiteront du droit d'émigration:-1)Tous les Grecs natifs du Territoire Ottoman, qui ont émigré avant le 16 Juin, 1830, et qui ne sont pas retourné en Turqie pour s'y établir: 2) Les Grecs à qui le droit d'émigration a été accordé par le Protocole du 16 Juin, 1830, et qui ont émigré entre la date du dit Protocole et le 9 Decembre, 1835, jour où la Carte de la frontierè a été remise à la Porte; pourvu toujours qu'ils aient rempli les conditions requises à cet égard par le présent Acte." State Papers 1836-1837, The Foreign Office, vol. 25, p. 792.



[46] C. M. Woodhouse, "Modern Greece, A Short History," Faber and Faber, p. 122.  

[47] See footnote 11.

[48] It is to be noted that the British historians used their reputation as excellent scholars to distort history. For example they call the citizens of modern Romania Rumanians whereas these people call themselves Romans in their own language. They do the same with the citizens of Modern Albania whom the call Albanians, but the ancient Albanians they call Albans. It is also interesting that the Greek Language is still strongly surviving among a great segment of today’s Albanian population who are semi-persecuted since Latinized Albanian is considered the real language of the Albanians. Even here we find Charlemagne’s Lie at work. The ancient Albanians and Romans must speak Italian Latin and not the hated Greek of the medieval Franco-Latins.         

[49] As far a we know from dialogue with Jews the cure in question was part of Old Testament Hassidic tradition and evidently is still so.