Ravenna Revisited: The Great Sack Race

Once upon a time [long before the invention television, radio and the printing press] the Ecclesiastical News Network broadcast propaganda from the pulpit.

Many of these propaganda productions have been embellished and immortalised by the creative writing skills of the Academic Acolytes who have [for example] manufactured glorious myths by turning natural disasters into wonderful wars and beautiful battles.

Ammianus’s account of the battle itself, as to be expected from a losing side, is far from clear. Heat, fire and dust seem to have been particularly significant. Much of what follows about the battle itself is modern supposition.


The Byzantine–Sasanian War of 602–628 was the final and most devastating of the series of wars fought between the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire and the Sasanian Empire of Persia… By the end of the conflict both sides had exhausted their human and material resources.


Some of the Ecclesiastical News Network propaganda productions were so successful they were frequently re-branded and re-run for subsequent generations of their flock [sheeple].

A classic example is the Great Sack Race.

The Great Sack Race was a pan-European game of skill, strength and ingenuity.

Competing teams from across Europe, armed only with sacks and shovels, would descend upon Rome and attempt to bury it’s glorious architecture under 18 metres of dirt.

A 2,300-year-old aqueduct uncovered by workers on Rome’s new Metro line has been hailed as “a sensational discovery of enormous importance” by the city’s Superintendency for Archaeology.

As for location, it lies 17-18 metres below Rome’s Piazza Celimontana, slightly to the south-east of the Colosseum in the historical centre.

Rome Metro Workers Accidentally Discovered An Ancient Aqueduct
The Local – Catherine Edwards – 6 April 2017


The Great Sack Race was so successful it was re-run many times.

The Romans were routed and subsequently the Senones sacked Rome.
The common date given for the battle is 390 BC.

The Sack of Rome occurred on August 24, 410.
The city was attacked by the Visigoths led by King Alaric.

The sack of 455 was the second of three sacks of Rome; it was conducted by the Vandals, who were then at war with the usurping Western Roman Emperor Petronius Maximus.

The Sack of Rome in 546 was carried out by the Gothic king Totila during the Gothic War of 535–554 between the Ostrogoths and the Byzantine Empire.

The Sack of Rome of May 1084 was a Norman sack, the result of the pope’s call for aid from the duke of Apulia, Robert Guiscard.


The Sack of Rome on 6 May 1527 was a military event carried out by the mutinous troops of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, in Rome, then part of the Papal States.

These frequent re-runs have given the Academic Acolytes more than a few headaches.

So inquiring minds aren’t encouraged to ask questions.

How did they physically manage to bury Rome under 18 metres of dirt?

How did they find anything to sack once Rome was buried in mud?

Inquiring minds aren’t encouraged to consider whether the Visigoths, Ostrogoths & Vandals were invented by the Ecclesiastical News Network because they never let a good natural disaster go to waste [whilst also needing to pad out their provenance by many hundreds of years].

On the other hand the shapers and retro-fitters moved the Heinsohn Horizon back in time by 534 years so that it connects with their Roman Empire narrative.

See: https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/ravenna-revisited-a-byzantine-birth/

The Battle of Adrianople (9 August 378), sometimes known as the Battle of Hadrianopolis, was fought between an Eastern Roman army led by the Eastern Roman Emperor Valens and Gothic rebels…

Ammianus’s account of the battle itself, as to be expected from a losing side, is far from clear. Heat, fire and dust seem to have been particularly significant.


Inquiring minds aren’t encouraged to wonder how [or why] the Normans found the time, energy, resources and logistical support to compete in the Great Sack Race of 1084 when they were [so we are told] fully occupied conquering Sicily.

The Sack of Rome of May 1084 was a Norman sack, the result of the pope’s call for aid from the duke of Apulia, Robert Guiscard.


Normans first arrived in Italy as pilgrims probably either on their way or returning from Rome or Jerusalem also visiting the shrine at Monte Gargano in the late tenth and early eleventh century… They began the conquest of Sicily in 1061 and it was complete by 1091.


Inquiring minds aren’t encouraged to ponder the possibility that the Great Sack Race was a series of fake news propaganda productions deployed by the Ecclesiastical News Network to demonise their demon de jour.

Fake news is a type of yellow journalism that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via the traditional print, broadcasting news media, or via Internet-based social media.


If you’re struggling with that concept simply replace the following words:

Senones, Visigoths, Vandals, Ostrogoths, Normans


Russians, Trump, Clinton, Global Warming or your favourite demon de jour.

In others words:

The techniques developed by the Ecclesiastical News Network are still going strong and consumers should critically examine the news and history they’re being fed before swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

Or in the words of Miles Mathis:

Are there any real historians, or all they all paid to lie?

The evidence all points to the latter.

As in every other field, historians proceed only by accepting the history they have been sold, and they are denied any advancement if they do not.

Only those who regurgitate the old lies are given teaching positions and book contracts.

Looks Like JFK Was Gay and Other Interesting News
Miles Mathis – 23 May 2017


Gallery | This entry was posted in Arabian Horizon, Catastrophism, Heinsohn Horizon, History, Ravenna Revisited. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Ravenna Revisited: The Great Sack Race

  1. I don’t think the historians are lying so much as fabricating a history well after the events, from a stance of ignorance and the manner of thinking that developed. I would wonder what psychological stresses the survivors of those times were under, and in an attempt to escape from the awfulness of the environmental catastrophe, retreated into the imaginal surreality of the brain. Given that any urban centres would be the first to collapse, the survivors of those catastrophes would be the illiterate country folk, and it’s not too much a stretch to then understand how the absurdities of religion came into existence. And when the madhouse becomes the norm, little wonder science and history end up being derailed.

    Velikovsky in his Ages in Chaos series mentioned the existence of transported soils or silts in cave dwellings in the near Middle East. The standard explanation for this anomalous grey soil was that it was a fashion of the time to decorate one’s cave with this grey dirt bought from afar. That was when I realised that the spelling of the academic discipline Archeaeology should be Arko-ology top reflect its lexical provenance.

  2. Thx1138 says:

    Sorry Louis I like you but I think that is an extremely naive opinion. Even today historians are paid to lie.

  3. daveyoung52 says:

    Seems to me if ,back then,you are immersed in the culture of ‘historians’ and trying to continue it,like it was your vocation or life purpose,then that is what you would do.If your only connection to a sane orderly past is ‘historian’ then i guess i might have gone with that,lying wouldn’t come in to it,i’ll side with Louis IMHO.

  4. daveyoung52 says:

    P.S. Yes, clearly today ‘historians’ are paid to lie.

  5. craigm350 says:

    Those who go with the flow are lauded and showered with a share of the riches even if they know the Emperor has no clothes. If you want a livelihood and a family its easier to be agreeable if you want to succeed.

    Those who stick their heads above the parapet get shot at making a fine example not to follow and mobs are ever handy to enforce compliance.

    Marr: “This is what I don’t get, because it suggests that – I mean I’m a journalist – people like me are self-censoring.”

    Chomsky: “No, not self-censoring. You’re, there’s a filtering system, that starts in kindergarten, and goes all the way through, and it’s not going to work 100% but it’s pretty effective. It selects for obedience, and subordination, and especially I think… [Marr: So stroppy people won’t make it to positions of influence] There’ll be behavioural problems. If you read applications to a graduate school you’ll see that people will tell you, he’s not, he doesn’t get along too well with his colleagues, you know how to interpret those things.”

    Marr: “I’m just interested in this because I was brought up like a lot of people, probably post-Watergate film and so on to believe that journalism was a crusading craft and there were a lot of disputatious, stroppy, difficult people in journalism, and I have to say, I think I know some of them.”

    Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority – I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”

    Marr: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”

    Chomsky: “I’m not saying your self censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believe something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.”

  6. They seem to be paid to interpret history in terms of their beliefs or cultural axioms. And if all human action is wilful or preconceived activities, are they then fabricating history in terms of what they believe, or are they falsifying history to suite an agenda. And if an agenda, is that not also a belief system, and thus another fabrication of history?

    And yes whatever they write, historians are paid to do so. It’ not what we know that is the trouble, it’s what we think we know that’s just not so that is.

  7. Thx1138 says:

    I get the point. The lies have been institutionalized.

  8. LH says: “I don’t think the historians are lying so much as fabricating a history well after the events ——“. Great empires, with much vested interest, are built on that ‘fabrication’, then every attempt is made to maintain status quo. New evidence which tells otherwise finds strong opposition.

    Examples: Ptolemy’s geocentric world (vide Galileo); Milankovitch in climate (vide GF Dodwell); Stockwell/Newcomb in astronomy (-ha —:) see Celestial crystal balls…. )

  9. melitamegalithic says:

    Here is another aspect of history, something I’m working with now. It is how we have retained material from the ancient past but have lost all sense of meaning – except the fundamental part.
    Look up this video, at 40:00 and next five minutes. In origin it is “the making of a plough and the fertilisation of mother earth”. Also see this link: https://melitamegalithic.wordpress.com/2017/04/25/the-two-queens-in-different-eras/
    Also here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1178071?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
    and https://www.scribd.com/document/122653722/Dawkins-R-1906-The-Modern-Carnival-in-Thrace-and-the-Cult-of-Dionysus
    This goes back in time for millennia; we still retain the structural parts that make up the folklore (see C Levi-Strauss: the structure of myth) but we have lost all sense of our own heritage. This lore was already well established and widespread 6000yrs ago.

  10. Did the Renaissance occur because of the Great Chinese Expedition of that Eunuch Admiral?

    Would also explain how so many war weapons, and other inventions appeared then. The Han apparently censored such weapons but detailed them, for use should that be necessary.

  11. An Awful lot of history lies inder water, at the edge of the continental shelf. That is where the great cities were. We can discern the rivers that would have been their optimal location, by GoogleEarth

  12. Pingback: The Heinsohn Horizon and The Migration Period | MalagaBay

  13. Pingback: Latin Languages: Vanished Visigoths | MalagaBay

  14. Pingback: Bordeaux Brickwork | MalagaBay

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.