How could Mark Kálti be so mistaken? This is indeed an unforgivable negligence. Klaus Weissgerber, who accepts the existence of the fictitious centuries, fails to note when writing about Kálti’s chronicle: “Honorius was indeed West Roman emperor and ruled between 395 and 423.” … Well yes! This certainly is a tremendous cardinal error. You see, Márk Kálti writes that emperor Honorius was a Greek, that is, East Roman emperor! Upon hearing this our highly esteemed historian comrades start to roar with laughter, saying: Emperor Honorius was not East Roman, but West Roman emperor! And not even Dr. The other point which is usually brought up against the reliability of the Chronicon Pictum is in connection with the emperor Honorius. It is rather unlikely, that a chieftain of over a 120 years of age would go into battle at Catalaunum, and would, after this and on top of it all, also see himself fit to marry! When I suggested for the first time that there is exactly 323 years difference between the date of the reconquest according to Kézai’s chronicle, 872, and that of the Chronicon Pictum, 549, – that is, the exact time difference separating the Christian chronology and the chronology measured from the death of Alexander – I found myself facing reactions such as this: “If you take the statements of the Chronicon Pictum so seriously, then you should also find an answer to explain why Kálti writes such an absurdity that Attila lived a 124 years!” True! – I thought.