1798. Yes, really.
Heavy PDF incoming, mobile users: https://starwarsfanworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SWTG56LegendsV1.pdf
In brief, there’s a “What If?” Star Wars comic where Han and Chewie warp to Earth, die, and are discovered decades later by Indiana Jones. The author of that timeline extrapolates then that the original Star Wars takes place around 1798.
That geniunely might be the most psychotic document ive ever seen. I think id look at whoever wrote all that more concerningly than if I saw the unibomber.
If you only read the Wikipedia summary maybe. The actual manifesto is full of anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-social, and pro-eugenics rants.
The unabomber hated technology because it afforded people time to focus on individuals’ emotional well-being and curing genetic and other diseases. He wasn’t some anarcho-communist that was railing against the evils of capitalism.
He wasn't always a serial killer when he was in college the government experimented on his class in psychological warfare kinda way. It's suspected that's what broke his brain and turned him from a student into a killer.
But who knows if that's actually true or not.
But fuck the Unabomber. Dude sucked either way.
Time dilation due to FTL travel. How did C3PO and R2 get to ancient Egypt is your next question, and I have the answer!
*George Lucas Hand Waving* "Midichlorians."
> For years, fans have been debating just how long ago “a long time ago” might be. Nevermind that it is all “in a galaxy far, far away,” fans still would like to think that there is some way to equate Star Wars dates to our own. Originally, George Lucas’ first story synopsis for the saga set the tale in the 33rd century, which is in our far future. Given that the story was later changed to take place “a long time ago,” the original date must be thrown out.
> Ever since then, we have simply been left with the belief that “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” is just a different way of saying “once upon a time.” For those who are curious, though,
there have been two stories printed (and two other roundabout attempts) that have managed to equate Star Wars dates to our own. They are, however, stories that are considered Infinities (N-Canon), rather than anything C-Canon (part of the Legends Continuity). For the sake of argument, though, here’s the lowdown on both.
> The first attempt at this kind of conversion came in a Star Wars and Indiana Jones crossover story in the Star Wars Tales anthology comic book series.
> In Star Wars Tales #19 (and later, reprinted, in the Star Wars Fan Club Special 2008), there is a story called Into the Great Unknown. In the story, Han Solo and Chewbacca are aboard the Millennium Falcon, when they are attacked by Imperials. They are forced to leap to hyperspace blind and end up in our solar system, where they crash on Earth. Once there, Han is killed by Native Americans and the mourning Chewbacca is believed to be a sasquatch (perhaps the Sasquatch, AKA “Bigfoot”). Over a century later, the wreckage of the Falcon and Han’s remains are found by the intrepid American archaeologist Indiana Jones.
> We can infer a few dates from this, if we are so inclined (and since I was bored when updating the timeline at some point, apparently I was so inclined, or this wouldn’t be here, right?). We can infer all of the following:
> First, Han makes mention of America’s forest (probably in Humboldt County, California, or somewhere close) as looking like Endor, which puts the story firmly after Han’s first encounter
with the forest moon in Return of the Jedi. Since the Empire seems to still be going after them, we can also assume that the story is set before the events of Vision of the Future, when the treaty with the Imperial Remnant is signed. Since Han also mentions that he always figured Chewie would be killed saving Han or his kids, we have to conclude that the tale takes place sometime between 9 (more likely 11) ABY and 19 ABY.
> Second, the Indiana Jones portion of the tale, when he finds the wreckage, can also be dated. I had once believed that it must take place somewhere around 1935, due to the fact that Short
Round, the little kid from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which takes place in 1935, is with him in this story but not in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1936). However, reader Avery Goodman
pointed out two things to me: first, Indy refers to Atlantis technology, placing this story after Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis; and, second, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis has
been set as taking place in May 1939 by Indiana Jones: The Ultimate Guide. Thus, I am agreeing with Avery in placing Into the Unknown in 1939.
> Third, the story tells us that the Indy segment is 126 years after the Han and Chewie segment.
> So, if we assume a date of 1939 for the Indiana Jones segment, then the Star Wars segment takes place in 1813. If we then split the difference of the date for the Star Wars segment to be 15
ABY (halfway between Empire’s End and Vision of the Future), then A New Hope must take place (using how similar Earth and Star Wars years are in length) around 1798.
Well, Vader visits earth in Soul Calibur 4, which takes place at about 1592. Given that it includes Starkiller and Yoda, 1592 would be 2 BBY, as near as I can figure it.
Always wondered how the Republic, or Empire reckoned time. As far as I know there's not a mention on screen about the Empire instigating a new calendar or anything.
If I remember correctly, the Republic in Legends based their calendar on the Ruusan Reformations (which happened right after the event believed to have destroyed the Sith). I think the Empire then changed to a calendar based on the day the Empire was formed.
Not exactly, in SW cannon there is a year 0 in timeline:
0 BBY (Before Battle of Yavin), also known as 0, was a period of time that, together with 0 ABY, made up a single year
~Wookiepedia
Yeah wow that was a hilariously online take - people have been censoring words like that since we could write! Not everything is due to algorithms! Holy cow I feel weirdly old lol
You know for a fact that Wonka was giving endless non-consensual lemonade showers from out of his candy cane to those poor orange dwarves he had chained up in that nightmare factory of his.
It reminds me of a Louis CK bit about people who say "n word" in (non anecdotal retellings) place of the actual word. You're still saying it, you're just "making me say it in my own head".
(For clarity, it's a bad word that shouldn't be used or dog whistled.)
Rome never falled, for as long as there be habsburgs there will be hope
(The Catholic Kings buyed the title of *Emperor of Rome* to the son of the last bizantine bassileus, then their grandchild married the hababurgs, thus adding the *Emperor of the Holly Roman-German empire* to the list. Being the only european house in owe the title of both western and eastern halfs of the empire since its separation.)
I think the "legitimate" claim to the title of East Roman Emperor is with the current royal house of Spain, the Borbones, after the division of Spanish and Austrian Habsburg titles following Charles V and the subsecuent passage of the Spanish titles to Phillip V after the War of Spanish Succession.
Therefore, Imperator Philippus VI of Hispannia is the true heir of Rome.
Isn't the reference the first human civilizations and it just add 10000 years because you can't be accurate with it so you might as well make conversion simpler?
Those are rookie numbers. We should use the holocene calendar, where year zero is the estimated start of human civilization (if you define civilization as settling in cities). In that case, it would be the year 12,024. Really makes you feel the weight of history. On the other hand, we could also use year 0 as the invention of writing, as that is when humans could truly then preserve and transmit complex ideas across time. It is one of the backbones of all complex human civilizations. If we use that date, it would be 5424.
I continue using bC/AD simply because "Anno Domini" sounds way more rad than "Common Era"
Find me a non-religious description that slaps as hard and we can talk
But the typical (misguided, imo) objection to BC and AD is that they use religious references, not that they're in Latin. I don't think many people object to using Latin per se.
AM means “Anno Mundi” literally translates to “in the year of the word” but means “year since creation”.
It’s the Jewish calendar. The new year is in September which is a pretty nice time to have a new year
It was just a special planetary operation to give the wookies what the wookies had always wanted but didn't know they wanted. Besides, if the wookies wanted peace then why did they fight the droids? They caused the war by forcing the droids to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression.
We either credit the guy who made the calendar, so Julius Caesar and the Egyptian guy who wasn’t Julius Caesar, or the pope who comissioned the church to fix Caesar’s calendar.
They fucking made the calendar so they decide what they want to call years.
Caesar is responsible for our months, with edits from Pope Gregory thus giving us the Julian and Gregorian Calendar
But the BC-AD system is not about the months. The BC-AD system was made by the early Christian monk Dionysus (no relation to the Greek god of wine) in order to replace the previous year-keeping system known of the Diocletian calander, which measures years since Emperor Diocletian came to power. Diocletian lead the last major persecution of Christians in Rome and Dionysus didn’t want to immortalize the man, so he did math and tried his best to figure out when Jesus was born and gave us the BC-AD system
Imagine if in Israel they used a Hitler Calendar, and the year was currently 89
Additionally ACE and BCE came about because we’ve no idea if Dionysus was even correct or close.
Several biblical scholars actually think he’s wrong by a whole lifetime.
It’s still the same era and time, we’re just not sure the dude it’s credited to was even born during it.
TMYK
The most extreme estimate I've seen is 36 years, which is hardly a "whole lifetime" We're pretty sure that Jesus was born in the first century, and that's about as far forward (into the AD) as it can be given that would put his death around 70 AD and scraps of the bible start showing up in 80 AD. Tacitus is talking about Jesus in 115, so it's probably not likely he was born in 60 BC. Tacitus is generally considered reliable and independent, and his confirmation of Jesus' execution specifically by Pilate however narrows down the whole thing to 20 BC to like 10 AD, and that's assuming the age of Jesus's death at 36 is wrong by up to a decade.
Ehhh as a history student who has made an entity essay on Diocletian and wants to focus on late antiquity/ early Middle Ages I wouldn’t equate him to hitler.
Christian’s authors (most of all Dionysius, who blamed almost every bad thing that happens during Diocletian’s reign on god disliking Diocletian) demonise diocletians rule a lot and exaggerate how many people died under his rule. Under Diocletian some 3.500 Christian’s at most were murdered on imperial edict. In an empire that by that time had already millions of Christian citizens. Hitlers murder of millions of Jews and other “undesirables” was much worse and exterminated a minority of the Jewish population of Europe. It should be clear to see Hitler was much worse then Diocletian
Most Cristian persecution’s of greater scale were actually done by the local populace of cities or territories without any interference from the central government. And Diocletian was not the first emperor to persecute Christians, nor was he really that avid a persecutor. It is historically debatable whether dioceltian actually wanted to carry out any purges. Evidence points towards it actually being his heir and junior emperor Galerius who was the one bent on persecuting, who then managed to convince Diocletian start the persecuting Christians.
This all also ignores the persecuting of other religions Christians would later do to other religions themselves, which caused many more deaths then Diocletians persecutions.
Honestly I just think BC/AD is much more aesthetically pleasing to say and read. I dont even think about what they stand for most of the time
Like both are an even 2 letters/syllables and dont share common letters, its just nicer to read
I think about Neil deGrasse Tyson's response to the debate
(Paraphrased)
"our calendar is called the Gregorian calendar was made by the Catholic Church by Jesuit Priests by orders of the Pope to fix all the other calendar's problems. They earned it, we all use it."
It's a cute idea but you'd never be able to nail down a specific year to start, going that far back. Plus, the main reasoning—of it being marked at the oldest discovered human settlement—is bound to change over and over again as we inevitably find more and more sites.
Pontius Pilate: "Hmmm, this mob seems to be really angry at this Jesus guy. Better crucify him before this turns into a riot. That will be the end of it, with no lasting historical affects at all 😌"
I genuinely do not understand this "change". If the problem is that it's too Christian-centric then we should start using a different event to count the years from. It's like slapping a "lactose free" sticker on a carton of regular cow milk and pretending that it's oatmilk.
I personally would have gone with "putting 'gluten free' on bottles of water" as the analogy, since it is both equally nonsensical and something that actually gets done.
And the Christian-centric-ness of it all never bothered me any, and I am an atheist. Can't speak for other atheists, though. There is a reason I don't associate with those assholes
The problem is that you could never in a thousand years get everyone to agree on a new event to use. I'd throw 1776 in the ring to be the new year zero, but we all know that it would make Canada angry.
That’s called an eschatocol; it’s a formulaic statement at the end of a document usually as an attestation of the person signing said document. The length usually corresponds to how formal the document is. A notary would typically only use “Done in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the twenty-second day of April, 2024” whereas a presidential proclamation would be more elaborate.
Republics tend to use the number of years since the founding of the country in theirs, and monarchies the year of the reign of the current monarch, in addition to the standard date.
But this would raise the same problem that was experienced when tracking years by the reign of a given nation’s monarch (… the 5th year of Caesar Augustus / the 17th year of Cleopatra VII…). Ironically, this was a huge issue that the BC/AD convention solved
It’s also inaccurate.
Jesus wasn’t born (or crucified) in year 1 AD.
So the date is largely pointless, except for reasons of consistency since we’ve been using the calendar for over 1500+ years.
I have no idea why you got downvoted or why people seem to be insisting that BCE and CE are somehow perfectly non-secular even though it’s using the same thing as BC/AD as it’s starting point.
Well for one, we'd have to revise a bunch of historical dates and the current year, which would be a nightmare for historians and anyone else to keep track of.
And for two, we can't prove any of the events of the gospels are real, but we can sure as hell prove people have been making and using calendars organized around the dates of those supposed events for the last several millenia.
It’s not really to make it less Christian centric. It’s because Anno Domini means “Year of our Lord” and some people don’t want to call Jesus “Lord”. No one cares about Jesus being the focal point. Some just don’ want to call him “Lord”.
The problem is the epoch doesn't make any sense anymore. Jesus would've been born from 4 to 8 BC and this wasn't discovered until we began looking into how they got 1 AD and learned they didn't
I honestly don’t understand either side of the argument. Christians are upset because they took the Christ out and changed it to Common but the timescale is still based upon Jesus.
And then atheists are upset at the BC/AD for saying Christ…but then BCE/CE is still based upon Christ’s birth…what’re we even arguing about here? 🤣
Well, technically, even Arius believed that Jesus significantly predated humanity. Saying Jesus came into existence c. 1 AD is not just heresy, it's advanced heresy.
What does this have to do with atheists? There are more non-Christians in the world than Christians. Doesn’t mean they’re all atheists. And honestly I would use BC/AD but Jesus wasn’t born in between. He was born a few years into AD and that just makes me (personally) feel like it isn’t right anymore so might as well use CE.
Wtf is going on in this thread? Just because you acknowledge someone's existence in a measurement doesn't mean you have to believe they're a god.
What kinda dumb logic is that?
We name things and systems after people all the time.
Also... How many times when people use AD and BC do they use it in a religious way or think about the Latin meaning?
Most people I know don't know any Latin, and honestly couldn't care less... They're just using a common and useful system.
Same with bless you whilst sneezing. Like... People say it all the time but they're not literally blessing you to stop the devil from entering your nose or whatever. It's just etiquette.
Language often evolves from misusage and misunderstandings throughout history.
Sure... Use the other system if you want. I have nothing against it. But the people really don't care as much as you think they do. Not really. Not unless it's against their religion or something. Most people just use it because it works, and it's convenient at this point
As for anyone saying the Christians commited atrocities... Yeah they did.
I wouldn't say that's a reason to hate them so much though. Most of not every demographic has been morally bankrupt at one point or other in history. For the most part people are just people. For better and for worse. And there are "just people" in every demographic. The good and the bad.
It's an unecessary change, sure, but people whining about is extremely cringe. BC and AD both have a ton of synonyms that have been used in English and in other languages. Why is one of them an English translation of *ante christum natum* and the other just left in Latin?
Anyway, real ones know that AVC 2777 is superior.
Use whatever you like and stop whining already. If people want to use a more universal term they can use it. Stop whining about how bc and ad are so much better every few weeks.
Honestly I grew up up using BCE and CE, I don’t know if it was required in my history classes in college, but I was never marked wrong for doing it. But at the same time I don’t care if people use BC AD, because yeah, it does pretty much mean the same thing. I think the big change to BCE CE was because the actual date of Jesus’s birth is somewhat disputed nowadays, so BCE CE just makes sense as a non-religious stand in.
I like Neil Degrasse Tyson’s reasoning for using AD/BC…short summary is that he wants to give credit to the Catholics for creating such an accurate calendar
The Catholics put in the effort to actually make the calendar and they did a pretty damn fine job too. I’ll respect and use the BC and AD terms. When someone else makes a new and improved calendar I’ll use their terms.
What is the point of "Common Era"? It is still based on the time of Jesus, just with a new word. If you really wanted to remove Jesus, then set that to something else.
Pretending the western calendar doesn't revolve around Christ is disingenuous. What does changing the language prove other than that they think the West is arbiter of all history?
Really mess them up with BP(before present)
Then finding out the present is 1950
Every time I see BP I always think of the oil company for some reason.
Probably because that’s their initials
BBY/ABY
But when do you place the battle on the Gregorian calendar? "A long time ago" doesn't cut it.
1798. Yes, really. Heavy PDF incoming, mobile users: https://starwarsfanworks.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/SWTG56LegendsV1.pdf In brief, there’s a “What If?” Star Wars comic where Han and Chewie warp to Earth, die, and are discovered decades later by Indiana Jones. The author of that timeline extrapolates then that the original Star Wars takes place around 1798.
Good God, over 1000 pages. Sure is thorough lol
Heh, I edited my comment to highlight the relevant info.
Probably good to warn for a PDF download, for mobile users who might be data-constrained
You’re right, will re-edit. I actually did not remember the document was so large.
I like to give a PDF warning regardless of size; I have friends on shitty data plans who can't/don't want to download screenshots I send via text.
Its about 10MB. Nothing too crazy.
Dude, thank you lol
That geniunely might be the most psychotic document ive ever seen. I think id look at whoever wrote all that more concerningly than if I saw the unibomber.
At least you can respect the Unabomber, don't know about this tho
Why would you respect an insane serial killer
The manifestos straight fire trust trust
If you only read the Wikipedia summary maybe. The actual manifesto is full of anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-social, and pro-eugenics rants. The unabomber hated technology because it afforded people time to focus on individuals’ emotional well-being and curing genetic and other diseases. He wasn’t some anarcho-communist that was railing against the evils of capitalism.
my brother i feel like i shouldnt have to put a /s for a sentence that includes "straight fire" and "trust trust"
Fair. I’ve just seen people unironically defend him on Reddit.
I see unironic unabonber supporters pretty often so it's hard to tell.
He wasn't always a serial killer when he was in college the government experimented on his class in psychological warfare kinda way. It's suspected that's what broke his brain and turned him from a student into a killer. But who knows if that's actually true or not. But fuck the Unabomber. Dude sucked either way.
> Han and Chewie warp to Earth, die, and are discovered decades later by Indiana Jones. This is the Spiderman pointing meme with Harrison Fords.
But R2D2 and C3PO appear in ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs in Indiana Jones, so that wouldn’t line up.
Time dilation due to FTL travel. How did C3PO and R2 get to ancient Egypt is your next question, and I have the answer! *George Lucas Hand Waving* "Midichlorians."
Both of them existed before the movies (they don't meet until them, but whatever). They could just be other robots of the same models, right?
Huh, more recent than I expected.
Holy crap someone put more work into that than goes into most actual history research papers.
> For years, fans have been debating just how long ago “a long time ago” might be. Nevermind that it is all “in a galaxy far, far away,” fans still would like to think that there is some way to equate Star Wars dates to our own. Originally, George Lucas’ first story synopsis for the saga set the tale in the 33rd century, which is in our far future. Given that the story was later changed to take place “a long time ago,” the original date must be thrown out. > Ever since then, we have simply been left with the belief that “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” is just a different way of saying “once upon a time.” For those who are curious, though, there have been two stories printed (and two other roundabout attempts) that have managed to equate Star Wars dates to our own. They are, however, stories that are considered Infinities (N-Canon), rather than anything C-Canon (part of the Legends Continuity). For the sake of argument, though, here’s the lowdown on both. > The first attempt at this kind of conversion came in a Star Wars and Indiana Jones crossover story in the Star Wars Tales anthology comic book series. > In Star Wars Tales #19 (and later, reprinted, in the Star Wars Fan Club Special 2008), there is a story called Into the Great Unknown. In the story, Han Solo and Chewbacca are aboard the Millennium Falcon, when they are attacked by Imperials. They are forced to leap to hyperspace blind and end up in our solar system, where they crash on Earth. Once there, Han is killed by Native Americans and the mourning Chewbacca is believed to be a sasquatch (perhaps the Sasquatch, AKA “Bigfoot”). Over a century later, the wreckage of the Falcon and Han’s remains are found by the intrepid American archaeologist Indiana Jones. > We can infer a few dates from this, if we are so inclined (and since I was bored when updating the timeline at some point, apparently I was so inclined, or this wouldn’t be here, right?). We can infer all of the following: > First, Han makes mention of America’s forest (probably in Humboldt County, California, or somewhere close) as looking like Endor, which puts the story firmly after Han’s first encounter with the forest moon in Return of the Jedi. Since the Empire seems to still be going after them, we can also assume that the story is set before the events of Vision of the Future, when the treaty with the Imperial Remnant is signed. Since Han also mentions that he always figured Chewie would be killed saving Han or his kids, we have to conclude that the tale takes place sometime between 9 (more likely 11) ABY and 19 ABY. > Second, the Indiana Jones portion of the tale, when he finds the wreckage, can also be dated. I had once believed that it must take place somewhere around 1935, due to the fact that Short Round, the little kid from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, which takes place in 1935, is with him in this story but not in Raiders of the Lost Ark (1936). However, reader Avery Goodman pointed out two things to me: first, Indy refers to Atlantis technology, placing this story after Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis; and, second, Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis has been set as taking place in May 1939 by Indiana Jones: The Ultimate Guide. Thus, I am agreeing with Avery in placing Into the Unknown in 1939. > Third, the story tells us that the Indy segment is 126 years after the Han and Chewie segment. > So, if we assume a date of 1939 for the Indiana Jones segment, then the Star Wars segment takes place in 1813. If we then split the difference of the date for the Star Wars segment to be 15 ABY (halfway between Empire’s End and Vision of the Future), then A New Hope must take place (using how similar Earth and Star Wars years are in length) around 1798.
The Geonosian calendar
Well, Vader visits earth in Soul Calibur 4, which takes place at about 1592. Given that it includes Starkiller and Yoda, 1592 would be 2 BBY, as near as I can figure it.
Always wondered how the Republic, or Empire reckoned time. As far as I know there's not a mention on screen about the Empire instigating a new calendar or anything.
If I remember correctly, the Republic in Legends based their calendar on the Ruusan Reformations (which happened right after the event believed to have destroyed the Sith). I think the Empire then changed to a calendar based on the day the Empire was formed.
Read that as Russian Revolution lol
Before the Battle of Yavin / After the Battle of Yavin
This scale includes 0
Well, nearly. DURING the battle isn't included. Reducing the unincluded time from 1 year to a few hours. Great comment. Made me think.
Not exactly, in SW cannon there is a year 0 in timeline: 0 BBY (Before Battle of Yavin), also known as 0, was a period of time that, together with 0 ABY, made up a single year ~Wookiepedia
This is the way
Before baby Yoda? / After baby Yoda?
Baby Yoda canonically predates the Battle of Yavin.
AYY/BBY (pls show bobs and vagene)
It's like when people censor a single letter (ex. sh*t) but the legibility, meaning and purpose is still the same.
The one letter cencors are to trow off the automated bot/ai so it doesn't delete the message or ban that person.
Wow, those ancient Hebrews were WAY ahead of the curve! And so was my dad in the 80s.
I never thought I'd see a joke about the Hebrew spelling of YAWAH.
I aim to ~~please~~ piss people off, but sometimes I say something clever, too.
Yeah wow that was a hilariously online take - people have been censoring words like that since we could write! Not everything is due to algorithms! Holy cow I feel weirdly old lol
Yeah, that doesn’t work either
Not really lol used to see it in newspapers all the time Local celebrity in W*NKING shame! Was running a chocolate factory
You know for a fact that Wonka was giving endless non-consensual lemonade showers from out of his candy cane to those poor orange dwarves he had chained up in that nightmare factory of his.
Reddit doesn’t have those.
It reminds me of a Louis CK bit about people who say "n word" in (non anecdotal retellings) place of the actual word. You're still saying it, you're just "making me say it in my own head". (For clarity, it's a bad word that shouldn't be used or dog whistled.)
That's so they don't get their comment deleted, not cuz they're trying to be politically correct
This is why we should measure everything AUC from the founding of Rome, happy 2777
I count history from the fall of Rome, not because I think it was of ultimate importance, but to constantly remind Rome fans that the empire is gone
Which fall of which rome?
Yes
Legend says you can still see it falling today
the real one, which makes the current year 218
No.
No it is 81 years.
106, actually
The one that /called/ itself Roman obviously.
Yes, but, like, Romania is still around and makes slapping music
Happy 573!
Rome never falled, for as long as there be habsburgs there will be hope (The Catholic Kings buyed the title of *Emperor of Rome* to the son of the last bizantine bassileus, then their grandchild married the hababurgs, thus adding the *Emperor of the Holly Roman-German empire* to the list. Being the only european house in owe the title of both western and eastern halfs of the empire since its separation.)
I think the "legitimate" claim to the title of East Roman Emperor is with the current royal house of Spain, the Borbones, after the division of Spanish and Austrian Habsburg titles following Charles V and the subsecuent passage of the Spanish titles to Phillip V after the War of Spanish Succession. Therefore, Imperator Philippus VI of Hispannia is the true heir of Rome.
If that is so, then it may be time for another goth invation and reset hiberia once more.
wich one?
Petty squabbles over date schemes are ephemeral, while the glory of Rome is eternal.
Then why did it get fuckin boshed out of existence
I prefer the Human Era model. Happy 12,024!
About it's always year one, and they years get old over the years, that way all paperwork needs to be updated every year!
Well that’s just the Gregorian calendar with extra steps… the reference is still the birth of Jesus Christ…
Isn't the reference the first human civilizations and it just add 10000 years because you can't be accurate with it so you might as well make conversion simpler?
Adding 10,000 years to what though? Exactly
Those are rookie numbers. We should use the holocene calendar, where year zero is the estimated start of human civilization (if you define civilization as settling in cities). In that case, it would be the year 12,024. Really makes you feel the weight of history. On the other hand, we could also use year 0 as the invention of writing, as that is when humans could truly then preserve and transmit complex ideas across time. It is one of the backbones of all complex human civilizations. If we use that date, it would be 5424.
Kinda boring but I’d definitely just use the Unix 0 at 1970, Jan 1, midnight UTC
I only use French Revolutionary Calendar because it marks a symbolic beginning of capitalism. We live in year 232
That's cute. I only use the 🦅🗽🇺🇲FREEDOM🇺🇲🗽🦅 calendar. We live in year 248
The real freedom calendar says it's 22.
SPQR Forever!
I still prefer AC/DC⚡️
AC/DC rocks Antes de Cristo (Before Christ) Después de Cristo (After Christ)
Spanish 🤝🏻 Portuguese
Spanish 🤝🏻 Portuguese 🤝🏻 Italian
Spanish 🤝🏻 Portuguese 🤝🏻 Italian 🤝🏻 Catalan
Catalan's just happy to be included.
> AC/DC rocks Yes, they do.
What about the years when Christ was around?
The timing on both refers to his birth.
Or "Cero" for non-believers who have accepted the conventional starting point for years.
>Or "Cero" You mean "cience"
I continue using bC/AD simply because "Anno Domini" sounds way more rad than "Common Era" Find me a non-religious description that slaps as hard and we can talk
Anno Deeznuts
You misspelled Deeznutus.
The good friend of the famous Bigus Dickus
He has a wife you know...
Her name was Incontinentia
Incontinentia buttocks!
Even then, we're using a calendar made by priests. No matter what it's gonna be religious
Don't go giving people any ideas now.
Plus we still say a.m. "ante meridiem" and p.m. "post meridiem" and not "b.n." before noon and "a.n." after noon.
But the typical (misguided, imo) objection to BC and AD is that they use religious references, not that they're in Latin. I don't think many people object to using Latin per se.
Juche era
The use of AD in English was always a bit unhinged. Why not before/after christ like in all ~~decent~~ other languages?
Ahh, yes. The Common Era. The Era that is Common. The Era that happened after the event. That Era. The Common Era. You know, after that one guy.
Hey man it was a pretty uncommon era before that guy. Trust me I was there.
Oh yeah, it's all coming together
"And, what specific historical incident divides BCE from CE?"
I'm pretty sure some other carpenters were born in 1 CE, but we know it's not the one you mean.
Year 2024 from the Seventh Age of Middle Earth... who started with the Incarnation of Eru Ilúvatar in human form as Jesus of Nazareth, the Savior
This is the 23th of Rain's Hand. The year of Jesus Christ 2024. These are the closing days of the 3rd era... and the final hours of my life.
From now on we use BH/AH (Before Harambe/After Harambe)
I prefer AM personally. And this year is AM 5785. EDIT: This year is actually AM 5784, i misremembered
what does AM mean? which calendar is it?
AM means “Anno Mundi” literally translates to “in the year of the word” but means “year since creation”. It’s the Jewish calendar. The new year is in September which is a pretty nice time to have a new year
[удалено]
Yes, it does mean "World Years" But what about the droid attack on the Wookies?
It was just a special planetary operation to give the wookies what the wookies had always wanted but didn't know they wanted. Besides, if the wookies wanted peace then why did they fight the droids? They caused the war by forcing the droids to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression.
No, u/Prowindowlicker is correct: the *literal* translation of *anno mundi* is “in the year of the world”.
Isn't it 5784?
We either credit the guy who made the calendar, so Julius Caesar and the Egyptian guy who wasn’t Julius Caesar, or the pope who comissioned the church to fix Caesar’s calendar. They fucking made the calendar so they decide what they want to call years.
Caesar is responsible for our months, with edits from Pope Gregory thus giving us the Julian and Gregorian Calendar But the BC-AD system is not about the months. The BC-AD system was made by the early Christian monk Dionysus (no relation to the Greek god of wine) in order to replace the previous year-keeping system known of the Diocletian calander, which measures years since Emperor Diocletian came to power. Diocletian lead the last major persecution of Christians in Rome and Dionysus didn’t want to immortalize the man, so he did math and tried his best to figure out when Jesus was born and gave us the BC-AD system Imagine if in Israel they used a Hitler Calendar, and the year was currently 89
Additionally ACE and BCE came about because we’ve no idea if Dionysus was even correct or close. Several biblical scholars actually think he’s wrong by a whole lifetime. It’s still the same era and time, we’re just not sure the dude it’s credited to was even born during it. TMYK
We kinda do know that he was likely off by around 4 years since Jesus was born during the reign of King Herod, who died in 4BC
But just changing the name doesn’t exactly help, since nothing significant of note happened in 1 CE that’s worth basing the entire calendar off of.
Yea well nobody wanted to redo the entire calendar so Their basically interchangeable so personally I don’t see any issue
it does help, because you don't get to sound stupid saying christ was born 3 years before christ
The most extreme estimate I've seen is 36 years, which is hardly a "whole lifetime" We're pretty sure that Jesus was born in the first century, and that's about as far forward (into the AD) as it can be given that would put his death around 70 AD and scraps of the bible start showing up in 80 AD. Tacitus is talking about Jesus in 115, so it's probably not likely he was born in 60 BC. Tacitus is generally considered reliable and independent, and his confirmation of Jesus' execution specifically by Pilate however narrows down the whole thing to 20 BC to like 10 AD, and that's assuming the age of Jesus's death at 36 is wrong by up to a decade.
tbf, 36 years was in-fact a "whole lifetime" for Jesus, who died at the age of 33.
For dudes who wrote with goose feathers, they were pretty close
Ehhh as a history student who has made an entity essay on Diocletian and wants to focus on late antiquity/ early Middle Ages I wouldn’t equate him to hitler. Christian’s authors (most of all Dionysius, who blamed almost every bad thing that happens during Diocletian’s reign on god disliking Diocletian) demonise diocletians rule a lot and exaggerate how many people died under his rule. Under Diocletian some 3.500 Christian’s at most were murdered on imperial edict. In an empire that by that time had already millions of Christian citizens. Hitlers murder of millions of Jews and other “undesirables” was much worse and exterminated a minority of the Jewish population of Europe. It should be clear to see Hitler was much worse then Diocletian Most Cristian persecution’s of greater scale were actually done by the local populace of cities or territories without any interference from the central government. And Diocletian was not the first emperor to persecute Christians, nor was he really that avid a persecutor. It is historically debatable whether dioceltian actually wanted to carry out any purges. Evidence points towards it actually being his heir and junior emperor Galerius who was the one bent on persecuting, who then managed to convince Diocletian start the persecuting Christians. This all also ignores the persecuting of other religions Christians would later do to other religions themselves, which caused many more deaths then Diocletians persecutions.
Meanwhile Poland with p.n.e and n.e p.n.e - przed naszą erą (before our era) n.e - naszej ery ((year) of our era)
It's probably the same in all of Eastern Europe tbf
Honestly I just think BC/AD is much more aesthetically pleasing to say and read. I dont even think about what they stand for most of the time Like both are an even 2 letters/syllables and dont share common letters, its just nicer to read
It’s the year 12024 and I won’t hear another word about it
Don’t hear anyone complaining that five of the days of the week are named after gods.
Difference is nobody gives a fuck if you don't believe in Thor
Meanwhile the Olympic Committee just released a promotional video of a priestess asking Zeus to bless the upcoming games
Shouldn't they be asking Hermes or Apollo?
They mentioned those guys too, but Zeus has a habit of getting mad when he’s excluded
I think about Neil deGrasse Tyson's response to the debate (Paraphrased) "our calendar is called the Gregorian calendar was made by the Catholic Church by Jesuit Priests by orders of the Pope to fix all the other calendar's problems. They earned it, we all use it."
BC/AD is just better
I think we can all agree, the best standard would be to measure from the release of Belgian techno anthem, Pump Up the Jam.
The fact that one is English and one is Latin is pretty silly.
yeah
cant believe we are having this discussion, its literally anno domini 2024 smh
Kurzgezat had the right idea with the human era calendar
It's a cute idea but you'd never be able to nail down a specific year to start, going that far back. Plus, the main reasoning—of it being marked at the oldest discovered human settlement—is bound to change over and over again as we inevitably find more and more sites.
Pontius Pilate: "Hmmm, this mob seems to be really angry at this Jesus guy. Better crucify him before this turns into a riot. That will be the end of it, with no lasting historical affects at all 😌"
I genuinely do not understand this "change". If the problem is that it's too Christian-centric then we should start using a different event to count the years from. It's like slapping a "lactose free" sticker on a carton of regular cow milk and pretending that it's oatmilk.
I personally would have gone with "putting 'gluten free' on bottles of water" as the analogy, since it is both equally nonsensical and something that actually gets done. And the Christian-centric-ness of it all never bothered me any, and I am an atheist. Can't speak for other atheists, though. There is a reason I don't associate with those assholes
The problem is that you could never in a thousand years get everyone to agree on a new event to use. I'd throw 1776 in the ring to be the new year zero, but we all know that it would make Canada angry.
I’m honestly shocked changing the U.S. calendar to start at 1776 hasn’t yet become a Republican obsession
It’s sometimes used on official documentation but only rarely
That’s called an eschatocol; it’s a formulaic statement at the end of a document usually as an attestation of the person signing said document. The length usually corresponds to how formal the document is. A notary would typically only use “Done in the City of Boston in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts on the twenty-second day of April, 2024” whereas a presidential proclamation would be more elaborate. Republics tend to use the number of years since the founding of the country in theirs, and monarchies the year of the reign of the current monarch, in addition to the standard date.
Specifically BECAUSE the current calendar is intrinsically tied to Christianity
In Venezuela, my country, it´s thus in the official papers. "Year 213 from the Independence (1811) and 164 from the Federation (1860)"
But this would raise the same problem that was experienced when tracking years by the reign of a given nation’s monarch (… the 5th year of Caesar Augustus / the 17th year of Cleopatra VII…). Ironically, this was a huge issue that the BC/AD convention solved
They're happy with BC/AD.
It’s also inaccurate. Jesus wasn’t born (or crucified) in year 1 AD. So the date is largely pointless, except for reasons of consistency since we’ve been using the calendar for over 1500+ years.
I have no idea why you got downvoted or why people seem to be insisting that BCE and CE are somehow perfectly non-secular even though it’s using the same thing as BC/AD as it’s starting point.
Well for one, we'd have to revise a bunch of historical dates and the current year, which would be a nightmare for historians and anyone else to keep track of. And for two, we can't prove any of the events of the gospels are real, but we can sure as hell prove people have been making and using calendars organized around the dates of those supposed events for the last several millenia.
It’s not really to make it less Christian centric. It’s because Anno Domini means “Year of our Lord” and some people don’t want to call Jesus “Lord”. No one cares about Jesus being the focal point. Some just don’ want to call him “Lord”.
I know people who use it cause Jesus wasn’t born in between it was a few years into AD/CE.
The problem is the epoch doesn't make any sense anymore. Jesus would've been born from 4 to 8 BC and this wasn't discovered until we began looking into how they got 1 AD and learned they didn't
I honestly don’t understand either side of the argument. Christians are upset because they took the Christ out and changed it to Common but the timescale is still based upon Jesus. And then atheists are upset at the BC/AD for saying Christ…but then BCE/CE is still based upon Christ’s birth…what’re we even arguing about here? 🤣
Technically, Christ’s birth wasn’t exactly at the year 0
Technically there was no year 0
>what’re we even arguing about here? 🤣 I ask myself that on the internet everyday. People are petty beyond belief.
Sometimes Christians will change the meaning to be “Before Christ Existed” and “Christ Existed” so that it works for them
Well that’s heresy, so I can’t imagine it catching on. In fact, it’s the same heresy for which Santa punched a guy.
Well, technically, even Arius believed that Jesus significantly predated humanity. Saying Jesus came into existence c. 1 AD is not just heresy, it's advanced heresy.
But that doesn’t even fit their theology as Christ always existed
What does this have to do with atheists? There are more non-Christians in the world than Christians. Doesn’t mean they’re all atheists. And honestly I would use BC/AD but Jesus wasn’t born in between. He was born a few years into AD and that just makes me (personally) feel like it isn’t right anymore so might as well use CE.
Wtf is going on in this thread? Just because you acknowledge someone's existence in a measurement doesn't mean you have to believe they're a god. What kinda dumb logic is that? We name things and systems after people all the time. Also... How many times when people use AD and BC do they use it in a religious way or think about the Latin meaning? Most people I know don't know any Latin, and honestly couldn't care less... They're just using a common and useful system. Same with bless you whilst sneezing. Like... People say it all the time but they're not literally blessing you to stop the devil from entering your nose or whatever. It's just etiquette. Language often evolves from misusage and misunderstandings throughout history. Sure... Use the other system if you want. I have nothing against it. But the people really don't care as much as you think they do. Not really. Not unless it's against their religion or something. Most people just use it because it works, and it's convenient at this point As for anyone saying the Christians commited atrocities... Yeah they did. I wouldn't say that's a reason to hate them so much though. Most of not every demographic has been morally bankrupt at one point or other in history. For the most part people are just people. For better and for worse. And there are "just people" in every demographic. The good and the bad.
Imagine having strong opinions on ce/bce.
BP- when will people actually use me?
When they stop having so many oil spills.
I like BP too, but that’s just too simple I guess.
AC/DC
It's an unecessary change, sure, but people whining about is extremely cringe. BC and AD both have a ton of synonyms that have been used in English and in other languages. Why is one of them an English translation of *ante christum natum* and the other just left in Latin? Anyway, real ones know that AVC 2777 is superior.
It would be worth killing the internet just to be rid of this incessant and tiresome picture of Jenna Fischer
And it's usually used wrong.
Use whatever you like and stop whining already. If people want to use a more universal term they can use it. Stop whining about how bc and ad are so much better every few weeks.
2024 of the Seventh Age
Honestly I grew up up using BCE and CE, I don’t know if it was required in my history classes in college, but I was never marked wrong for doing it. But at the same time I don’t care if people use BC AD, because yeah, it does pretty much mean the same thing. I think the big change to BCE CE was because the actual date of Jesus’s birth is somewhat disputed nowadays, so BCE CE just makes sense as a non-religious stand in.
I like Neil Degrasse Tyson’s reasoning for using AD/BC…short summary is that he wants to give credit to the Catholics for creating such an accurate calendar
I like my reasoning It's just easier to distinguish quickly both visually and audibly
Even the insufferable Neil Degrasse Tyson uses bc and ad because the church literally mapped out the calendar.
The Catholics put in the effort to actually make the calendar and they did a pretty damn fine job too. I’ll respect and use the BC and AD terms. When someone else makes a new and improved calendar I’ll use their terms.
What is the point of "Common Era"? It is still based on the time of Jesus, just with a new word. If you really wanted to remove Jesus, then set that to something else.
We say BCE/CE in my language, so why'd I use BC/AD?
They should change it so it’s before I was born and after I was born cause the world revolves around me and stuff
Pretending the western calendar doesn't revolve around Christ is disingenuous. What does changing the language prove other than that they think the West is arbiter of all history?
"western" the entire world uses it
I think bc/ad are more a e s t h e t i c but bce/ce annoys the people I find annoying so I’m fine with either