From "Compendium of World
THE TROJANS AND WESTERN EUROPE
The story of the famous Trojan kings -- once so widely discussed
in Greek literature -- is little known to history students today.
It begins in the days of Jasius, or Jason, who became king of
Celtica in 1601. The half-brother of Jasius is Dartanus, whom
Josephus declares to be Dada or Dara (See 2 Chronicles 2:6).
Dada was of the House of Judah and the Trojan kings therefore
were JEWS! Following a quarrel Dirtiness fled to Asia Minor,
married the daughter of a native king, and founded the vital fort
Thus the Trojan line of kings -- to be discussed in detail in
Vol. 2 of the Compendium -- were able to dominate Western Asia
Minor. The Trojans were generally supported by the Assyrians in
all their wars against the Greeks. The line of Trojan kings may
be found on page 12 of Enderbie's "Cambria Triumphans," or
"Britain in its Perfect Lustre."
Kings of Troy to 1181 Lengths of Reign Dates
Dirtiness (Compare the date 1477 with Eusebius'
account of Dynasty XV in Egypt)
In 1181 the Trojans were crushed in the First Trojan War with
Greece. Aeneas, of the royal family, fled to Italy. A son,
BRUTUS, expelled from Italy returned to the Aegean area and
organized the enslaved Trojans. Lydians and Maeonians. The Greeks
were defeated and Troy was recaptured. With the recapture of Troy
in 1149 the list of Sea Powers of the Aegean and eastern
Mediterranean began. According to the terms of the treaty with
the Greeks, Brutus migrated, with all who wished to follow him,
via the Mediterranean into BRITAIN.
His sons continued to rule ancient Britain, and on occasion vast
areas of the continent. The line of Brutus fell in a fratricidal
war in 482 B.C.
Line of Brutus Lengths of Reign Dates
(Ebranck was a great conqueror, made an alliance with the king of
Italy, occupied all Gaul and much of Germany, threatened to
invade the eastern Mediterranean. Does this explain the unusual
behavior of King David of Israel in his late years when he sought
to take a census of the House of Israel in preparation for a vast
Cunedag and Margan
Ferrex and Porrex
These two sons of Gorbodug perished in a 456 fratricidal struggle
after 5 years. Thus the direct line of Aeneas and Brutus ceased
-- as the Trojan line through Aeneas and Ascanius perished in
Italy in 509, only 27 years before.
After the death of Porrex and Ferrex the land of Britain was
divided among Rudaucus, king of Wales; Clotenus, king of
Cornwall; Pinor, king of Loegria; Statorius, king
of Albania; and Yevan, king of Northumberland for 48 years --
The total duration of the struggle that ensued upon the death of
Gorbodug was 53 years -- 487-434. In 434 MOLMUTIUS Dunvallo, son
of Cloten, king of Cornwall, unified the kingdom. (The ancestry
of Cloten is unrecorded).
He enacted REMARKABLE laws and was the FIRST prince of Britain to
be installed with the rites and ceremonies of CORONATION. He wore
a golden crown and other ornaments of solemn inauguration, a
custom unknown by his predecessors. This new line of kings ruled
till the coming of Julius Caesar in 55.
(I will bring a study of this man Molmutius and his laws in
another addition to this section. As Hermon Hoeh stated he was
quite the remarkable king - Keith Hunt).
Native British kings continued even under the Roman Caesars,
revived after the departure of the Romans, and were finally
replaced by the direct Davidic line from Ireland, Scotland and
England by Edward I.
Line of British Lengths of Reign Dates
Kings from Molmutius
Belinus and Brennus
Silvius II or Silisius
Elanius or Danius
Elidure his brother
Vigenius and Peridurus
Dedantius, or Dedacus
Bleduus, or Bladud 2
In the seventh year of his sons Angrogaenus and Theomantius, when
Cassibelan their uncle usurped the kingdom, Julius Caesar entered
Britain. The seventh year is 55-54. Caesar first came in autumn
(The truth of Julius Caesar coming to try and conquer Britain is
also not widely known or taught. The truth is remarkable. Since
Wales and Scotland over the last 30 years, have become much more
"nationalistic" and "outspoken" the English historians have
backed down and now admit that the history of Britain as recorded
by those two nations, especially Wales, is OVERALL very correct.
Julius Caesar was met in 55-54 B.C. on the sea shore with
thousands of British troops, and to his astonishment they had a
cavalry of chariots and horses. In the first battle against the
British this great Roman general never got passed the sea shore.
He was forced to with-draw in defeat back to the European
He came the following year with MANY more soldiers. Again the
battle against the British troops was fierce. This time he
managed to push his way through from the sea shore to London
[called a slightly difference sounding name then - but the word
"London" is derived from it], but in the end he had to negotiate
a "peace treaty" with the British generals. He withdrew every
soldier and went back to Europe. The Roman Empire never tried to
conquer Britain again for about 100 years. Even when they did
enter Britain a 100 years later and established "outposts" or
what we might call "forts" - they did it not by conquest but by
treaty. As Hermon Hoeh stated, the British still retained their
"kingly" line etc. And life in Britain went on as before. To even
establish themselves a foot-hold in Britain there were MANY
battles, and some of the greatest military leaders in British
history came forth to defeat the Romans many times. The famous
woman military leader was "Boadicea" and there is a fine
sculptured monument of her in her chariot [famous chariots with
the large long "scythes" of sword blades extending out from the
wheels] in London to this very day. In her last battle with the
Romans, which the Romans were winning, it looked like she would
be taken captive, so she committed suicide, so she would not fall
into the hands of the Romans and be ravished etc. which the
Romans were well know to do to women they captured.
Caractercus or Cradoc was another mighty British leader who won
more battles against the Romans than they did against him. He was
betrayed by a country-man [another leader of one of the tribe
nations in Britain] and handed over to the Romans.
He and his wife and daughters were taken to Rome to be paraded
before the Roman people [as was the custom of the Romans with
their defeated enemies before execution]. So famous a warier had
he become that the population of Rome were awe struck in seeing
him. He spoke so gallantly [all of this and his speech is
recorded by the Roman historian - Tacius - still available in
most Public Libraries] that he and his family were granted PARDON
[very rare indeed from the Romans] on condition that he would not
lead in any more wars against Rome. He complied, lived in Rome
for a number of years, and one of his daughters married Pudens or
Rufus, a Roman senator, many think is the Rufus of the apostles
Paul's letter to the Romans (chap.16:13). This wound mean they
both became Christians.
The Gospel had already gone into the British Isles before
Caradoc was fighting the Romans, and of course the Gospel was
already in the city of Rome by the time Paul wrote his letter to
the Roman Christian congregation - Keith Hunt).
THE TESTIMONY OF ARCHAEOLOGY
Having thrown out the early history of Europe and Britain,
historians have sought archaeology as the remaining means of
unravelling early European history. Archaeology alone is
What historians should have done was to combine the evidence of
scientific archaeological research with the testimony of written
history. Then they would have known the time, the people and the
leaders whose mute testimony they have uncovered from the soil.
Consider, for a moment, early Britain. Consider, for a moment,
what archaeologists have to report concerning early Britain. Take
special note of the vocabulary they must use in order to clarify
The first substantial migration to British soil, report
archaeologists Jaquetta and Christopher Hawkes in "Prehistoric
Britain," page 8, was of "Neolithic" long headed farmers. When
they came, who they really were, how long they resided until the
succeeding migration -- these and other questions can only be
guessed at. The second migratory wave to reach British shores
were a round-headed, "bronze-culture" folk whom archaeologists
have dubbed "Beaker Folk", or "Bell-beaker Folk." But all this
jargon does not really tell who they were. How would you know
who a people really were if all you were told was that they were
a "Food-Vessel folk," a "Tea-kettle folk", or a "Beerbottle
People"? or used buttons instead of zippers?
After this, archaeologists declare, came an "Urn People," later a
"Deverel-Rimbury" invasion followed by a "La Tene" invasion --
and at length Julius Caesar's invasion in 55 B.C. Is it not time
that sober historians cease fooling themselves by supposed
knowledge that is, by itself, really no knowledge?
Now see how clear this evidence becomes when placed side-by-side
with written history. In the succeeding chart is the evidence --
couched in scientific jargon -- as recovered by archaeology,
combined with the written history of Britain -- as preserved in
PALAEOLITHIC PERIOD (Archaeology)
Remains of pre-flood world, lasted 1656 years to 2369-2368 (the
latter dates may not be correct - Keith Hunt)
MESOLITHIC PERIOD (Arch:)
Latest pre-flood and earliest post-flood hunters migrate through
NEOLITHIC PERIOD (Arch:)
Arrival in Western Europe of Chaldeans (Hebrews) and Assyrians
from Shinar under Samothes, or Zames Ninyas -- shortly after
2094, continues through several centuries; climaxes in Megalithic
sites of Tuatha De Daanan after 1457 (see Irish history).
EARLY BRONZE - BEAKER FOLK; ROUND-HEADED;
LARGELY NOMADIC (Arch:)
Coming of BRUTUS and of Troy and Trojan heroes in 1149; Trojans
were acquainted with Aegean civilization; peacefully penetrated
land; cremated their dead and put ashes in urns for burial -- a
custom common to Asia Minor.
RISE OF WESSEX CHIEFTAINS AND "URN PEOPLE";
TRADE WITH MINOAN CIVILIZATION OF CRETE;
PERIOD BEGINS AS "EARLY BRONZE" FOLLOWED
BY TRANSITION INTO "MIDDLE BRONZE" CULTURE (Arch:)
Time of expansion under Ebranck in Solomon's day.
Numerous books separate "Wessex Chieftains" from "Urn People."
They were the SAME people -- Wessex chieftains burials were
merely those of the aristocracy; urn burials those of the common
people. see page 106 of "Wessex" by J.F.S.Stone.
"Unfortunately we have, " writes Stone, "absolutely no knowledge
whatsoever of the existence of any contemporary habitation or
occupation of sites in Wessex."
Had the scholars combined the "Urn people" with the Wessex
chieftains, they would have had the contemporary sites of
DEVEREL-RIMBURY INVASIONS IN SO-CALLED
"LATE BRONZE" PERIOD; GRADUALLY REPLACE
"URN PEOPLE." (Arch:)
A new, but related, people invade British Isles during days of
Silvius (681-632 B.C.) and Jago (632-604 B.C.); see Sammes'
"Antiquities of Ancient Britain, p. 170; these were first wave of
children of Jacob (Esau's brother) who were uprooted by
SO-CALLED "EARLY IRON" IMMIGRANTS PENETRATE
INTO BRITAIN; IN AFTER YEARS EARLY PASTORAL
"URN PEOPLE" MIGRATE OUT OF BRITAIN TO
BRITTANY IN FRANCE (Arch:)
Another wave of same people who invaded in days of silvius and
Jago now percolate into Britain; civil war results; old line of
kings overthrown and perish in 482; civil war ends in 434 with
new line of kings.
ANOTHER WAVE OF "EARLY IRON" INVADERS; ORIGINALLY
FROM REGION OF AUSTRIA AND MORAVIA, MIGRANTS
PASSED THROUGH GAUL AND BECAME KNOWN AMONG
ARCHAEOLOGISTS AS "LA TENE" PEOPLE FROM SITES
OF THEIR CULTURE IN GAUL (Arch:)
In the days of Morundus, king of Britain (299-290 B.C.), invaders
from Gaul attack Britain; named Morini or Moriani in Welsh
records -- from whence Moravia, their original homeland, is
derived; King Morindus defeats them after they had already
overrun much of the country (Sammes' "Antiquities," pp. 175-176);
from archaeology comes this testimony: "The determined and
organized resistance to aggression....discouraged the La Tene
raiders and prevented them from settling in any force on the
southern chalk....no wholly La Tene type of society was
established" from - Prehistoric Britain.
And that is how history provides a clear explanation of
archaeological findings. Of course the idea that iron was not in
use until the "Iron Age" is absurd. Yet this is the idea that
most laymen have as a result of using such terminology.
Since much of the early history of Britain is interwoven with
ancient Troy, the next chapter will present the archaeological
results of the excavation at Troy, side-by-side with the record
of history, especially the historical list of Sea Powers that
seized upon Troy as a key to controlling the Eastern
Mediterranean and the Aegean and Black seas.
I'm not going any further with Hermon Hoeh's Compendium of World
History, so of course his next chapter will not be reproduced on
this Website. Entered on Keith Hunt's Website, August 2003