8 ms·

And in that calender, February is the last month, which makes it the logical month for adjusting leap years.

jffry 4y ago
And likewise, September is the 7th month, October the 8th, etc etc
lolinder 4y ago
It looks like there's a legend that this was the case, but January has been the first month of the year through all of recorded history, and Julius Caesar's version was no different. EDIT: Because there's a lot of confusion in several replies I thought I'd clarify: February was the second month in Julius Caesar's calendar. Romans in the Republic describe the month as being at some point the last month in the calendar, but we don't have any direct record of that. That's what I mean when I refer to it as a legend: it's a story that later Romans tell about their distant past. It is probably accurate but the sources are too far removed from the actual event to be treated as primary sources. This is true of Roman history in general: any story that dates back to the kings should be treated as a legend that Romans told about their past. It may have elements of the truth, but shouldn't be taken as firm fact. This particular legend has a lot of evidence going for it, but that doesn't make it inaccurate to refer to it as a legend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Februarius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Februarius
- Jap2-0 4y ago
  That article seems to state the opposite?
  - lolinder 4y ago
    > In the oldest Roman calendar, which the Romans believed to have been instituted by their legendary founder Romulus, March was the first month, and the calendar year had only ten months in all. Ianuarius and Februarius were supposed to have been added by Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, originally at the end of the year. It is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first. Most of what we know about pre-republican Rome is from oral tradition, not actual records. So if by the time of the Republic February was the second month of the year, it was the second month of the year through all of recorded Roman history.
    - kgwgk 4y ago
      Maybe Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November and December were the seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the year through all of the “recorded Roman history”. But it seems well accepted that they were once the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth months of the year.
      - lolinder 4y ago
        In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as a legend. That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. I really don't doubt the authenticity of the story, I mainly was trying to indicate that we don't know when the change occurred but it certainly happened a long time before Caesar: by his day, the change was an oral tradition whose full story was lost in the very distant past.
        coldtea 4y ago
        >That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. Not just "for most". It has negative connotations (of the kind reffered to here) for all people. "Legend" connotes "didn't take place".
        lolinder 4y ago
        I'm a person, and legend does not have that connotation for me, it means "it was only handed down orally so we can't be sure". I'm sure my idiolect is unusual in that regard, but I stand by my "for most people".
        IncRnd 4y ago
        A legend is a traditional story sometimes regarded as historical but isn't authenticated. You are saying that a legend is a story that is believed to be false. That is exactly opposite from the meaning of the word and is NOT something believed by "all people."
- jfk13 4y ago
  That article says "it is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first", but doesn't actually deny that the year formerly ended with February. See for example p.187 of https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L333.pdf https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L333.pdf for a 1st century BC reference to it: > The Terminalia 'Festival of Terminus,' because this day is set as the last day of the year; for the twelfth month was February, and when the extra month is inserted the last five days are taken off the twelfth month.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    To be clear, I'm not denying that it was the first month at some point. It wasn't when Caesar designed his calendar, and we don't have a record of it changing. I refer to it as a legend not to indicate that it isn't true but to indicate that the only sources we have are referring to it as changing sometime in the distant past.
    - adrian_b 4y ago
      It is very likely that at its origin the Roman year started on the spring equinox. That is why March was the first month and February was the last Month. However, the astronomical rule was not followed later, and due to the inconsistent length of the year the position of the spring equinox had drifted from the 1st of March to around the 25th of March by the time of Julius Caesar. The present position of the spring equinox around the 20th of March does not correspond to its position at the introduction of the Julian calendar, but to its position around the time of the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325).
- kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
  No it hasn't. Your link even points out that Jan and Feb were added to a 10 month calendar starting with March. Moreover, various cultures notionally observing the Julian calendar have assigned varying dates to the start of the year throughout history.
  - lolinder 4y ago
    It says that later Romans said that they started with the 10-month calendar and that the second king added 2 months, and that at some point those two months migrated to the front. The context that I did not include in my original comment and should have is that everything from Rome in the time of the kings is considered to be legend. There are likely things that are rooted in fact, and this story has strong evidence for it, but the number and order of months has not changed in recorded Roman history, we only have indications from later Romans that they believed it changed at some point in the past. My main point was that Caesar did not have February as the last month, he used the same order as his contemporaries and as we do.
- behnamoh 4y ago
  As a Persian, I always found the Gregorian calendar weird. In Iran and some other countries, Jalali calendar is used which is much more straightforward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalali_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalali_calendar The Iranian calendar (also known as Persian calendar or the Jalaali Calendar) is a solar calendar currently used in Iran and Afghanistan. It is observation-based, rather than rule-based, beginning each year on the vernal equinox as precisely determined by astronomical observations from Tehran. There are 12 months. The first 6 have 31 days and the rest have 30 days, except the last month which is 29 days. Every 4 years, it's a leap year and the last month becomes also 30 days. It's also precisely set to follow seasons. For example, the first day of Fall is actually the first day of "Mehr" (the 7th month). For some reason, the Gregorian calendar has it on Sep. 22.
  - walrus01 4y ago
    For what it's worth many early European cultures also considered the start of the year to be at the start of spring, generally the same idea as Nowruz, which is where we got Easter from as a conglomeration of "pagan" rituals and Christian religion. Unfortunately we ended up with this weird Dec. 31st at the end of a year in the middle of winter which doesn't make any logical sense.
    - BuckRogers 4y ago
      There’s more similarities than just that. Iran was founded by Indo-Europeans.
      - behnamoh 4y ago
        Many similarities in languages too. Persian (Farsi) has the same root as some European languages (and should not be confused with Arabic, which is totally different than both). In Persian | In English mädar | mother barädar | brother dokhtar | daughter pedar | father bad | bad ...
        4y ago
- thaumasiotes 4y ago
  > but January has been the first month of the year through all of recorded history Are you kidding? Not only are September through December literally named "Month 7" through "Month 10", but the year began in late March as recently as AD 1751. That is not a period where we're suffering from a lack of recorded history.
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    September through December being months 7 to 10 are because Julius Caesar (July) and Augustus Caesar (August) added months named after themselves after they were named.
    - thaumasiotes 4y ago
      No, that never happened. They renamed the existing months "5" and "6".
      - nicoburns 4y ago
        Huh, TIL
  - lolinder 4y ago
    True enough, my mistake! I was only looking at the Roman time period and didn't realize that the calendar shifted back to starting in March during the Christian era. That's really interesting to learn! My main point is still the same: Caesar's calendar started in January and he was following the order that was current in his day. We do not know when the switch from March to January occurred. There are multiple stories about the switch (the supposed dates range from 750 BC to 153 BC), and there are legends of a 10-month calendar that didn't include January and February at all, but there are no extant contemporary records describing the switch.
    - adrian_b 4y ago
      The legends about the 10 month calendar are almost certainly a very late invention, which appeared as an attempt to explain why e.g. December is the 12th month. It is likely that at its conception all the months of the Roman calendar were numbered, but some time later the months January to June were given names corresponding to important religious festivals, which were scheduled during those months.

And likewise, September is the 7th month, October the 8th, etc etc

It looks like there's a legend that this was the case, but January has been the first month of the year through all of recorded history, and Julius Caesar's version was no different. EDIT: Because there's a lot of confusion in several replies I thought I'd clarify: February was the second month in Julius Caesar's calendar. Romans in the Republic describe the month as being at some point the last month in the calendar, but we don't have any direct record of that. That's what I mean when I refer to it as a legend: it's a story that later Romans tell about their distant past. It is probably accurate but the sources are too far removed from the actual event to be treated as primary sources. This is true of Roman history in general: any story that dates back to the kings should be treated as a legend that Romans told about their past. It may have elements of the truth, but shouldn't be taken as firm fact. This particular legend has a lot of evidence going for it, but that doesn't make it inaccurate to refer to it as a legend. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Februarius https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Februarius

Jap2-0 4y ago
That article seems to state the opposite?
- lolinder 4y ago
  > In the oldest Roman calendar, which the Romans believed to have been instituted by their legendary founder Romulus, March was the first month, and the calendar year had only ten months in all. Ianuarius and Februarius were supposed to have been added by Numa Pompilius, the second king of Rome, originally at the end of the year. It is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first. Most of what we know about pre-republican Rome is from oral tradition, not actual records. So if by the time of the Republic February was the second month of the year, it was the second month of the year through all of recorded Roman history.
  - kgwgk 4y ago
    Maybe Quintilis, Sextilis, September, October, November and December were the seventh, eight, ninth, tenth, eleventh and twelfth months of the year through all of the “recorded Roman history”. But it seems well accepted that they were once the fifth, sixth, seventh, eight, ninth and tenth months of the year.
    - lolinder 4y ago
      In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have referred to it as a legend. That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. I really don't doubt the authenticity of the story, I mainly was trying to indicate that we don't know when the change occurred but it certainly happened a long time before Caesar: by his day, the change was an oral tradition whose full story was lost in the very distant past.
      - coldtea 4y ago
        >That seems to have negative connotations for most people that I didn't mean to convey. Not just "for most". It has negative connotations (of the kind reffered to here) for all people. "Legend" connotes "didn't take place".
        lolinder 4y ago
        I'm a person, and legend does not have that connotation for me, it means "it was only handed down orally so we can't be sure". I'm sure my idiolect is unusual in that regard, but I stand by my "for most people".
        IncRnd 4y ago
        A legend is a traditional story sometimes regarded as historical but isn't authenticated. You are saying that a legend is a story that is believed to be false. That is exactly opposite from the meaning of the word and is NOT something believed by "all people."
jfk13 4y ago
That article says "it is unclear when the Romans reset the course of the year so that January and February came first", but doesn't actually deny that the year formerly ended with February. See for example p.187 of https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L333.pdf https://ryanfb.github.io/loebolus-data/L333.pdf for a 1st century BC reference to it: > The Terminalia 'Festival of Terminus,' because this day is set as the last day of the year; for the twelfth month was February, and when the extra month is inserted the last five days are taken off the twelfth month.
- lolinder 4y ago
  To be clear, I'm not denying that it was the first month at some point. It wasn't when Caesar designed his calendar, and we don't have a record of it changing. I refer to it as a legend not to indicate that it isn't true but to indicate that the only sources we have are referring to it as changing sometime in the distant past.
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    It is very likely that at its origin the Roman year started on the spring equinox. That is why March was the first month and February was the last Month. However, the astronomical rule was not followed later, and due to the inconsistent length of the year the position of the spring equinox had drifted from the 1st of March to around the 25th of March by the time of Julius Caesar. The present position of the spring equinox around the 20th of March does not correspond to its position at the introduction of the Julian calendar, but to its position around the time of the First Council of Nicaea (AD 325).
kevin_thibedeau 4y ago
No it hasn't. Your link even points out that Jan and Feb were added to a 10 month calendar starting with March. Moreover, various cultures notionally observing the Julian calendar have assigned varying dates to the start of the year throughout history.
- lolinder 4y ago
  It says that later Romans said that they started with the 10-month calendar and that the second king added 2 months, and that at some point those two months migrated to the front. The context that I did not include in my original comment and should have is that everything from Rome in the time of the kings is considered to be legend. There are likely things that are rooted in fact, and this story has strong evidence for it, but the number and order of months has not changed in recorded Roman history, we only have indications from later Romans that they believed it changed at some point in the past. My main point was that Caesar did not have February as the last month, he used the same order as his contemporaries and as we do.
behnamoh 4y ago
As a Persian, I always found the Gregorian calendar weird. In Iran and some other countries, Jalali calendar is used which is much more straightforward: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalali_calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jalali_calendar The Iranian calendar (also known as Persian calendar or the Jalaali Calendar) is a solar calendar currently used in Iran and Afghanistan. It is observation-based, rather than rule-based, beginning each year on the vernal equinox as precisely determined by astronomical observations from Tehran. There are 12 months. The first 6 have 31 days and the rest have 30 days, except the last month which is 29 days. Every 4 years, it's a leap year and the last month becomes also 30 days. It's also precisely set to follow seasons. For example, the first day of Fall is actually the first day of "Mehr" (the 7th month). For some reason, the Gregorian calendar has it on Sep. 22.
- walrus01 4y ago
  For what it's worth many early European cultures also considered the start of the year to be at the start of spring, generally the same idea as Nowruz, which is where we got Easter from as a conglomeration of "pagan" rituals and Christian religion. Unfortunately we ended up with this weird Dec. 31st at the end of a year in the middle of winter which doesn't make any logical sense.
  - BuckRogers 4y ago
    There’s more similarities than just that. Iran was founded by Indo-Europeans.
    - behnamoh 4y ago
      Many similarities in languages too. Persian (Farsi) has the same root as some European languages (and should not be confused with Arabic, which is totally different than both). In Persian | In English mädar | mother barädar | brother dokhtar | daughter pedar | father bad | bad ...
      - 4y ago
thaumasiotes 4y ago
> but January has been the first month of the year through all of recorded history Are you kidding? Not only are September through December literally named "Month 7" through "Month 10", but the year began in late March as recently as AD 1751. That is not a period where we're suffering from a lack of recorded history.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  September through December being months 7 to 10 are because Julius Caesar (July) and Augustus Caesar (August) added months named after themselves after they were named.
  - thaumasiotes 4y ago
    No, that never happened. They renamed the existing months "5" and "6".
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      Huh, TIL
- lolinder 4y ago
  True enough, my mistake! I was only looking at the Roman time period and didn't realize that the calendar shifted back to starting in March during the Christian era. That's really interesting to learn! My main point is still the same: Caesar's calendar started in January and he was following the order that was current in his day. We do not know when the switch from March to January occurred. There are multiple stories about the switch (the supposed dates range from 750 BC to 153 BC), and there are legends of a 10-month calendar that didn't include January and February at all, but there are no extant contemporary records describing the switch.
  - adrian_b 4y ago
    The legends about the 10 month calendar are almost certainly a very late invention, which appeared as an attempt to explain why e.g. December is the 12th month. It is likely that at its conception all the months of the Roman calendar were numbered, but some time later the months January to June were given names corresponding to important religious festivals, which were scheduled during those months.