Accuracy of Nostradamus

What was needed were quatrains that were relatively clear, with specific names and/or dates in them. Fortunately Nostradamus did provide such. Three quatrains were specifically dated, with nothing, or very little vagueness about them. They were quatrains that were supposed to talk about events that would happen in the years 1609, 1700 and 1727. And yes, these years were put into the quatrains by Nostradamus himself so there is no doubt about their legitimacy.

So everything continued onward till the year 1609 came around.

The Keys of St. Peter, symbol of the Catholic Church

This is the first timed quatrain with very little ambiguity to it. The time of the event is given, the beginning of the year 1609. The event is given, an election. The participants are given, the Roman Clergy, which makes it the College of Cardinals – it can be no other. The result is also given, a cunning person comes from the Campania region of Italy. The claim about him being cunning strongly indicates that he would be, at best, a very shady individual. The only ambiguous part concerns the Grey and black, the grey cries out Franciscan monks while the black speaks of a standard priest. So, what Nostradamus is here saying is that in the beginning of the year 1609 the College of Cardinals will hold an election and elect a cunning individual from Campania. This could only happen if there was no Pope. So, the pope would have to have died in 1608 and the one elected would be the new pope.

This quatrain, the 91st quatrain of the 10th century, never happened. It never will happen. That this did not happen is apparent. 1608 - 1609 did not see the death of Paul V. While it is true that Paul almost died towards the end of 1608 due to a serious illness, it is also true that he recovered and reigned for several more years. The whole quatrain depends on him dying in 1609, or at the least the very end of 1608. Since he did not, this quatrain will never be fulfilled.

This would seem to give detractors who claim he was nothing but a charlatan food for argument. The very first dated quatrain was an abject failure. It was a field day for his detractors. Some would ask why the Prophecies survived. According to Theophilus de Garencières the Prophecies only survived because they became a means to study the ancient form of the French language. This actually made sense, the quatrains do speak of diverse incidents in a very colorful way. Still, it was a very low point for the Prophecies.

Then came the year 1700.

Again, we have a quatrain with very little that is ambiguous. The east is either Russia or the Ottoman Empire. The north is Scandinavia. Chavigny, when he was talking about the north, included many of the German states. The year that the event starts is also given - 1700. The first line is actually a throwaway line, it says nothing. The only ambiguous part is the part about the moon’s virtue.

Karl XIII and Piotr I, the leaders of the Great Northern War

This prediction happened exactly as it said. Pyotr (Peter) the Great of Russia forged an alliance with Saxony, the Polish/Lithuanian kingdom and the Danish/Nordic kingdom and started a war with Karl XIII of Sweden in 1700. Sweden stood tall for a number of years, winning battle after battle, but Russia ended up being the major winner of the war, conquering over two thirds of the Swedish Empire. In fact, if Karl had not died and Sweden sued for peace, it is likely Russia and her allies, which in the end also included Hesse, Britain and Prussia, would have completely conquered Sweden.

And the part about the moon’s virtue? In this case, it is a reference to a trait ruled by the moon: desire. Astrologically the moon traditionally rules the emotions and desire is one of those emotions. Pyotr wanted to establish St. Petersburg. Even when he was trying to get out of the fight because Karl was so deadly, he refused to tear down his new port, even though he took territory from Sweden in order to built it. Pyotr had such a strong desire for the port that he staked all, even his throne, to get it.

Detractors may claim that the lines are so few that it could refer to any event, the standard explanation they give to scoff at any and all claims of success. But this claim is actually fallacious. The claim could have had something to it if it just spoke about the east and the north, but the fact that Nostradamus added the year 1700 to it renders all other possible explanations impossible. It had to have happened or started in the year 1700. The Great Northern War was the only event that started in 1700 that could have fulfilled the quatrain, in fact it did fulfill the quatrain.

So, how did he predict it? Was there a natural basis for it? Keep in mind that after Nostradamus died there were over a hundred years before the year 1700. With what was happening even then in Muscovy, it certainly might have been possible to predict that someday the new nation founded by Ivan the Dread would erupt as a very powerful nation – it had after all defeated their Mongol overlords and were rapidly growing eastward so there was a great amount of potential strength there. It would also be logical to predict that someday the new power would come into conflict with the powers of Scandinavia, this was nothing more than a necessary rational thought based on the basic nature of human leaders. If one were to say that the new power could take a huge bite out of the northern, Scandinavian nations, this too would be nothing less than an obvious conclusion for if Muscovy succeeded in becoming very large it would necessarily become very powerful. To say that this new nation would start it, this was not necessarily a given, smaller and weaker kings have often launched wars against their stronger neighbors, sometimes winning. But at least the probability did lay with the eastern power starting it, especially as the nation continued to grow in size and power. So, we can say that at least for this there was indeed a natural basis for the claim – in fact based on this anyone with any intelligence could have predicted it.

But to say that this was based on purely natural means is to ignore one key factor, the year that Nostradamus wrote in the Quatrain. He stated the year 1700. He put his reputation on the line stating this year. And it did happen in this specific year. It did not start the year before or the year after but exactly during the year 1700. To say that it would happen in a specific year….

It is the assertion that it will happen in the year 1700 that makes the quatrain so interesting. Based on our common understanding, the events described in the quatrain could only start in the year 1700 and no other. At the very least it was a very bold prediction, but in reality it did happen. To be able to predict such an event, over a hundred years beforehand, is actually impossible. It is like claiming in 1850 that during the year 1969 there would be the first man on the moon – a totally ludicrous statement to say in 1850 even though it did happen in 1969. To say in 1850 that someday a man would walk on the moon, that would be then a far-fetched claim but it would not be unreasonable. But to say in 1850 that it would happen in 1969….

If Nostradamus was a charlatan, as so many claim, the odds of his making an accurate prediction like this, saying that a rather general and obvious assertion that anyone could have made would happen long after he was dead in a very specific year and no other, well the chances of such a claim actually happening would be astronomical. And yet, it did happen.

So, how was it that Nostradamus made such an accurate prediction? For accurate it was, completely and totally. He could only have made such a prediction if he had reason to believe it would happen. And he would only have reason to believe it would happen if he had some way to perceive future events. In other words, what we nowadays call precognition, what was then called prophecy.

This, of course, leaves open a very interesting question. How is it possible for someone who was so correct in one quatrain be so incorrect in another? The third dated quatrain gives us a vital clue as to how Nostradamus actually worked!

Like the 1609 quatrain, this was a miss. But unlike the miss of 1609, this quatrain, the 77th quatrain of the 3rd century, was almost a hit. In fact, it is so close that some commentators make the claim that it was successful. Why is this?

Hosein Safavid, the "Sultan" of the quatrain

In 1727, Egypt was ruled by the Ottoman’s. The Ottomans, (those of Egypt) did go to war with Iran (Persia). The current sultan of that time was Ashraf Khan of the Afghani House of Hotaki. His predecessor was the deposed Sultan of Iran, Hosein of the house of Safavid. Hosein had been allowed to live due to the goodwill of his successor who had violently deposed him. However, when Ahmed III of the Ottoman’s announced his intention to restore Hosein to the Iranian throne, Ashraf Khan Hotaki, the second of the House of Hotaki, sent Hosein’s head to Ahmed.

So, how to explain it? It is wrong that the Sultan of Iran was imprisoned by Ahmed for Ashraf was never imprisoned by Ahmed. Still, Hosein was the one time Sultan of Iran. And his head was shown to Ahmed. Nostradamus very likely saw that Hosein was a Sultan of Iran. He also saw enough to recognize that Ahmed was the Sultan of the Ottoman’s. He also saw Hosein’s head being displayed to Ahmed. What would you decide if you saw just these events?

If we assume that Nostradamus saw everything that would happen, then the quatrain would be an abject failure. If this is the case then the errors and successes of Nostradamus creates a paradox that is impossible to explain. For if one assumes that everything he sees has to be fulfilled, then one wrong quatrain renders the whole false. But at the same time, a few right quatrains, especially dated ones, renders the whole right. This is a logical paradox and an impossibility, rendering the whole thought impossible.

But if we assume that Nostradamus saw nothing, then the accurate predictions suddenly become necessary to explain away. It is true that the simple expedient of claiming coincidence is sufficient to explain away any accurate predictions he makes. The problem is, one coincidence may be chance, but a number of them is stretching belief. And when one of those "coincidences" is astronomical in its odds, then to claim it is coincidence is to not only deny the evidence, it is to abuse Occam's Razor which states that the simplest explanation is the most likely. For in this case coincidence is not the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that he did foretell these events because, again the simplest explanation, he saw them happen. Under such evidence, one can only claim that Nostradamus did not see the future in any way, shape or form because of a preconceived notion that precognition, or prophecy, does not exist. But utilizing such a preconceived notion is, I must point out, a violation of the most basic of the principles of knowledge - Objectivity.

So, we are forced to concede that he did see the future. However, we are also forced to concede that he did not see all of the future. And we are also forced to concede that he saw certain things but not others. And this gives us the answer we are looking for. For if we reason, based on the evidence of the successful quatrains, that Nostradamus did see the future but, based on the additional evidence of the failed quatrains, that he did not see everything that would happen, then we are approaching the truth. In addition, if we reason, based on the evidence of certain near miss quatrains, that his visions of the future was not perfect but rather haphazard in how they came to him and that he put it all together in the best way he could, then everything suddenly makes sense and the accuracy rate is quite adequately explained. And this is what almost certainly happened. Nostradamus saw that Hosein was the Sultan of Iran. He saw Hosein’s head being shown to Ahmed, whom he figured out was the overlord of the Turks. Somehow he figured out that this happened in the year 1727. No, he did not see Ashraf Khan with Hosein, so he did not make that connection. But since a head was normally presented to a king after a prisoner was executed, it was a reasonable assumption that Hosein was the prisoner of Ahmed. From this, the whole quatrain lays out not as the actual events happened but rather how Nostradamus understood they would happen.

We can therefore assert that he saw parts of the future and made judgment calls as to what was going to happen. He was not always right, as the 91st quatrain of the 10th century proves, but as the 49th quatrain of the 1st century also proves, he was not always wrong either. And sometimes, as the 77th quatrain of the 3rd century proved, he was often close.