4 ms·
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
by 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 agoTo 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 agoIt 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).