Just a small statement, separating facts and theories.
Fact. Scaliger was very clever, maybe the most literate man of his century,a genius really.
Fact. He was critical in history specially chronology, he organize massive amount of historical documents of lots of different sources and languages in a unified time-line.
Theory. He wanted to do good and inspire, to give good examples, in a time of wars he discovered classics talking about great noble empires, republics, long peace ages, times of art, and how it fell because of corruption. The process is long to explain. He was an historian and a teacher. He believed he was doing good.
Fact. There are lot of contradictions in Scaliger-Petavius (official) chronology, and there do exists a lot of historians who criticize it, alternative analysis and explanation of it exists, and it is multi-disciplinary and multi-cultural, is not based on nationalism or religion but in continuous contradictions, one explanation of why such discovery can not be explained in traditional chronology is because that chronology is wrong and proposed wrong dates for that events, so proposing alternatives dates for it is a good solution, one that when continued, lead to volumes of research. You may like it or not, but many volumes of many researches of many different countries and centuries exists and with good evidence in them. The exact dates, reason of the wrong dating or manipulation is complicated and debatable, but serious discussions exists mainly because of the holes and impossibilities in Scaliger-Petavius chronology. And checking the veracity of what I say is easy. I don’t claim to know all, I only claim that much of history is not as solid as it seems, it has lot of contradictions and there are other theories explaining it. Curious persons will check it out if they value is interesting and worth their time, but at least ask yourself what you truly know about what happened thousands of years old, where did you learned it and how have you verified it.
Accept it not as your knowledge, but as the official view. Accept you don’t know it because you don’t even know how and who claim it. You are repeating what others told, and without understanding it even. When you verify and learn for example how the roman chronicles came to us, who discovered them, who translate them and if they were accepted as originals by their peers or not, then talk. When you research how C14 works and how it was developed, how it wasn’t checked against different places, temperatures, altitudes, latitudes, erosion, water exposure, humidity, how it’s half age approximation has changed during the years, how artifacts that don’t get the expected dating result are just discarded as “fakes” with a straight faces… Babbling and writing three characters C14 is not argument, when you don’t even know how C14 works.