the first day of the Common Era was January 1, 1 C.E.
That is not true. It was a retcon, invented hundreds of years later. That in itself doesn't change the numbering, but it does point out how artificial and arbitrary the whole thing is. There could be a Year Zero (or two) if we wanted one; we could insert it right now if there were general agreement, and it would in no sense be any more artificial or false to history if we did so.
In fact we have. The astronomical calendar does include a year zero, and if I say the twentieth century ended with 1999, I'm just using that, so there.
The insanity of the artificial fixing on "January 1, 1 C.E." becomes even clearer if one considers that, due to the leap year provisions of the Gregorian calendar, and the switch to Gregorian from Julian, the century turn anniversaries are slightly off base, anyway, plus the overall crashing fact that the starting point was intended to fix on a historical event that they got the date wrong for.
But you can't get off by saying that any hundred years makes a century, though indeed it can. The "01" fixatives are just as upset at anyone who says "the century" or "the millennium" that isn't the one they chose, even if they don't specify "the twentieth century." You're the only person I've encountered making your argument who is prepared to admit that "the hundred years with a 9 as the third digit" may be legitimately called a century at all.
(And it's 99% congruent with the so-called "twentieth century", so the heck with it.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-11-25 06:43 pm (UTC)That is not true. It was a retcon, invented hundreds of years later. That in itself doesn't change the numbering, but it does point out how artificial and arbitrary the whole thing is. There could be a Year Zero (or two) if we wanted one; we could insert it right now if there were general agreement, and it would in no sense be any more artificial or false to history if we did so.
In fact we have. The astronomical calendar does include a year zero, and if I say the twentieth century ended with 1999, I'm just using that, so there.
The insanity of the artificial fixing on "January 1, 1 C.E." becomes even clearer if one considers that, due to the leap year provisions of the Gregorian calendar, and the switch to Gregorian from Julian, the century turn anniversaries are slightly off base, anyway, plus the overall crashing fact that the starting point was intended to fix on a historical event that they got the date wrong for.
But you can't get off by saying that any hundred years makes a century, though indeed it can. The "01" fixatives are just as upset at anyone who says "the century" or "the millennium" that isn't the one they chose, even if they don't specify "the twentieth century." You're the only person I've encountered making your argument who is prepared to admit that "the hundred years with a 9 as the third digit" may be legitimately called a century at all.
(And it's 99% congruent with the so-called "twentieth century", so the heck with it.)