All solar, lunar eclipses mentioned in chronicles presumed to be written before the XVI century could not and did not take place at the very time and exact location reported to us by the ancient authors thereof, who did like so much to stress the importance of the event with some phenomena in the sky. Either the authors lied or were wrong, or both. Verdict: either the events took place some other time and some other place or there was nothing spectacular in the sky at that very moment. Voil tout 'Astronomy vs History' crowns scores of years of meticulous and extensive research performed by the eminent mathematician Anatoly Fomenko and his colleagues. This research started actually as an anecdotical byproduct of Russian-American competition in Moon exploration when famous NASA scientist Robert Newton discovered a very strange phenomenon in lunar mechanics. The alternatives offered to classical history are stunning, unorthodox to the extent of being labeled at first sight heretical by virtually every scholar of history. The author hopes that historians will use the toolbox of his methods of analyzing the historical data in pursuit of correcting the numerous in-veracities of the traditional version of history. The author dissects every historical age and analyzed the data from every source imaginable - Greek and Egyptian chronology take a good beating, and it goes rapidly downhill from there. Ticho Brahe, Ptolemy, and Copernicus take the blame for creating the legend of a mythical Classical age that never was and misdating medieval events by hundreds and thousands of years as very ancient ones. In 'Astronomy vs. History' we are reminded of the crucial role of eclipses in verifying the dating of major historical events, of stone Zodiacs containing the true dates of such events. Our perception of history begins to change dramatically even before we're through with 'Astronomy vs. History'. On one hand, Dr. Fomenko et al call everybody, historians including, to apply Occam's razor of exact sciences toolbox to world history. On the other, the scientists Dr. Fomenko et al are ready to recognize their alleged mistakes of New Chronology theory, to repent and to retract if and only if: - radiocarbon dating methods or dendrochronology pass the clear anonymous 'black box' tests; - astronomic data refute their results on solar eclipses; - it is proven irrefutably that Robert Newton (NASA astrophysicist) was wrong to call 'ancient' Ptolemy the greatest con man in history in his book 'Crime of Claudius Ptolemy'; The radiocarbon dating labs run their very costly tests only if is the sample to be dated is accompanied with an idea of age pronounced by historians on basis of...subjective..mmm...gutfeeling and the history books they have been writing for the last 400 years. Radiocarbon labs happily bill for their fiddling and fine-tuning with C14 hardware to get the dates 'to order' of historians. Circulus Vicious is perfect. Connect the dots See https: /