It concerns first of all not of political colouring both distribution of sympathies and antipathetics at the description of those or other events, that derivates an opportunity of existence of an abundance of the points of view (that opens the very large field for the subjectivism, and that the author will not mention). BUT  

It concerns first of all such objective physical parameters of described events, as time and place, and also others (essence of events, names of the participants, connection with sources).

So, if the teacher of the history confidently speaks (author of the textbook of the history not less confidently writes), for example, about arrival to authority in Rome by Octavian August per 31 years about common era (as it was accepted to write earlier, about new era) or about the basis of Rome per 753 up to AD, they should as the academic teachers to incur the certain responsibility for reliability stated. Stated, we shall be repeated, not from the point of view of policy, and from the point of view of chronology. Namely, that these events up to now, that is till 2002 of common era, were held 2033 and 2765 ago.  

The tragicomedy of the situation consists that it, teacher of the history, for certain knows that there was no since then continuous chronism. That in sources is chronological disorder. That eras of the time scoring was not so the little. That of ways of recalculation of years since one era about another too was not so the little. (However, it can it both not know and not guess. But it already its trouble, and also trouble of the teachers enclosing in its head similar dogmas).  

That the modern chronological concept of the history of mankind for the period approximately till 1300 CE Is the set of dogmas, instead of conclusive trues, clearly follows first of all from chronological disorder, which was kept by some medieval sources (it is possible to result weight of examples, the author of clause because of an abundance will afford even on it to not stop). Such dogmas concern the doctrine of development of the civilization for the period from most ancient times approximately up to year 1300 CE, it is traditional considered to an antiquity and middle ages, therefore the picture of development of the civilization appears not as the best image from the point of view of chronology, geography and personalies.  

  Such dogmas have developed in the first period of emerging European historiography in XI-XVI centuries. The beginning was necessary to them by first both pope and empire chronists (Sigebert Gemblensis, Joachimus Florensis, Martin Polonus, Ptolemues Luccensis, Flores Temporum, Bernard Guidonis) and their logic end was the chronological doctrine Joseph Justus Scaliger. Its concept, past long way of development, was criticized by many (Dionysis Petavius, Iohann Kepler, Isaac Newton), but, despite of it, the scientific concept of chronology of an antiquity was accepted by church, and together with it and society to teaching to educational institutions as.

Today Scaliger’s chronological dogmas are accepted by the majority of the historians - professionals all over the world. Not numerous exceptions are the groups of the historians or independent researchers, which are engaged with eschatology (study of the religious doctrines about final destiny of the world and man), chiliasm or milleanuism (from greec chilias — one thousand), believe in �Thousandyear empire� of the god and true men on ground, and at the modern level - study of celebrating of thousand year anniversaries), catastrofism (theory of accidents), criticism of historical falsifications, and also other independent researchers.

For the latine language authors (majority of the chronicles of their authorship are in rather simple access in the Moscow libraries), which wrote, besides other, global, universal chronicles of mankind, by the main result of their works was the creation of the list of the Roman emperors and Roman popes from them datings from the Christ Birth. These lists were finally fixed shortly before 1300, first celebrating of the Jesus Christ anniversary. Such celebrating has appeared for destiny of world chronology epoch-making: the official readout of years up to the end of light, Parousia of the Christ (among the christians), Messiah coming (among Jews) has stopped, all engaging by prophecies about messianic events were announced by lieprophets, and celebrating anniversaries began.  

The first authors of works, in which these lists of popes and emperors have appeared, were Martin Polonus (Martin Triopausendis) and anonymous schwabian  monk, author of the world chronicle Flores temporum. Their results repeatedly were exposed to criticism by the further researchers.  

As to Joseph Justus Scaliger, he has not shown interest to epoch from the standard Christm Birth before his own time (if Anthoni Grafton to trust, who  is author of the Scaliger’s biography), completely having trusted to Sigebertus Gemblensis, which to him has delivered Lipsius, and has engaged in development of the chronological doctrine on earlier times. After the spelling of the first global chronological product De emendatione temporum (� About correction of times �), year it has taken advantage jews of treatment of date of creation of the world (3760 years about common era) has undergone to rigid criticism and moreover, had the conflict to the management of the Calvinist church, then it was compelled to write the second product Thesaurus temporum (�The Dictionary of times �), where it has given the picture of development of the world, using thus Christian dogmacy, which carries creation of the world for 5500 years about common era. At the manipulation with dates of the ancient world about it is necessary to remember first of all.  

Thus, if the modern historical science continues to assert dogmatic positions about firmness of modern chronology of an antiquity and middle ages, it thus loses the right to be called as the historical science in complete volume. The feeling, regularly expressed by the historian feeling of deep satisfaction (more exactly of absence of feeling of the dissatisfaction) existing chronological doctrine speaks only about one: about them not the high enough professional level as experts in an antiquity and middle ages. The author of clause never will forget the statements of one historian historian-traditionalist, which in reply to the remark on essentially other version of essence of events contained in one of sources, has answered approximately so: whether �Well there is not enough what fool what has written?� (the speech goes about the important source on the history of Russia).  

The opinion is stated. Whether there will be actions?  

January 2002. (After several years of painful meditations).