From a site of the Italian volcanists. The description of this eruption is made using the words of two witnesses of it: Giulio Cesare Recupito (De Vesuviano Incendio Nuntius) and Giulio Cesare Braccini (Dell'Incendio fattosi al Vesuvio a' XVI Dicembre 1631, e delle sue cause ed effetti). THE NIGHT BETWEEN 15 AND 16 DECEMBER: Recupito Earthquakes, particularly strong occurred during that night when we thought the same city teared from its foundations. For two days there were continuous tremors and frequent quakes: in the following five days the earthquake became less frequent until the all tragedy ended. In Naples, no house fell down but many were damaged. At Herculaneum, the palace of the Archbishop partially collapsed.
Then you're in the wrong place. This board is devoted to discussion. If you only want to lecture to people - and if you won't deal with the evidence against your assertions - then this is no place for you.
The tactics of these 'history revisionists' are full of this skepticism and based on straw men...Pliny is in the way of their 'proof', so they first have to disprove Pliny; say he never existed, that he lived at another time, that he was writing about a different volcano.
Then you have the proof of the excavation site iteself. Gotta get rid of that...cite all kinds of examples of people who have planted 'fake' artifacts for archaelogists, deny the effectiveness of dating methods, claim that Latin was still a popular language in 1631. Sure some thing aren't provable beyond doubt...but the alternative theories of 'false' history and purposeful elongation of history by coniving humans is ridiculous, IMHO. There is no motivation for it, certainly not enough for a broad-scale cover-up such as these people imagine.
The description of this eruption is made using the words of two witnesses of it:
Question; how do you decide to believe these witnesses and not to believe Pliny? That is the problem with this type of research...it is cafeteria style history, where you can pick out the witnesses YOU like.
At Herculaneum, the palace of the Archbishop
According to Wikipedia, no town has gone by the name of Herculaneum since 79. I am sure if we put our heads together we can discover why your witnesses say there was a town of Herculaneum. It might be simple...notice they say 'at' Herculaneum, and not 'in' Herculaneum. Almost like it was a site they were talking about, as in 'at the site of Herculaneum'. They DO say 'in' Naples. Here I WOULD like to see the original Italian (not Latin, btw! on this important document).
I would suggest that it means that the palace was near the presumed site of Herculaneum. I note that you don't even attempt to deal with the stronger evidence against your position, so I can only presume that you are unable to answer it.
I do not deny, that Pompeii could be destroyed before 1631. It have been possibly restored after destruction. However the old city should be under the city, that today is dug out. I approve, that dug out the city was lost in 1631. We have books the eruptions of Vesuvius written by witnesses in 1631.
But the only city we seem to have is the old Roman city - which appears to have been destoryed somewhere around 79 AD. I haven't seen any archaeological evidence of reconstruction or any reports of reconstruction. Find those and you'll have a much better case.
After thick layers of ash covered the two towns, they were abandoned and eventually their names and locations were forgotten. Then Herculaneum was rediscovered in 1738, and Pompeii in 1748. Pompeii - Wikipedia
They knew the names from the ancient Roman histories which many, if not most, scholars had read or were at least familiar with. From those histories, they would have known about where the cities had been.
Much the same as with Troy, whose name and approximate location was known because of the Illiad. As with Pompeii and Herculeum (P&H), Troy was not forgotten because its story had been written down and survived to continue to be read centuries later. If they had relied solely on oral tradition then they would have been forgotten within a few generations, but having been written down enabled them to survive for thousands of years.
The main difference between Troy and P&H is that scholars weren't sure whether Troy had actually existed since it was told of in a literary work, whereas they were much more certain that P&H existed since they were described in actual histories.
There is no information in modern books that medieval authors mention Pompeii. (Why?)
Medieval == pre-Renaissance. What triggered the Renaissance was the rediscovery and reading of the ancient authors.
Plus, the works of medieval authors did not spread very far, because they pre-dated the printing press. Most medieval "authors" were more concerned with hand-copying the books that already existed.
The Renaissance did have printing presses, so there were a lot more authors and a lot more of their books printed and distributed. Plus, they had more ready access to the ancient authors (eg, from books written in Byzantium ("the Second Rome" in Russian Orthodoxy, the "Third Rome" being Moscow) and brought to the West by refugees.