5 ms·

The right answer was, and still is: Jan 1, 1901

• readthenotes1 2y ago
  How can that be if 15 of those centuries are on the Julian calendar?
  • whycome 2y ago
    Also, when they switched things in 1582: https://www.britannica.com/story/ten-days-that-vanished-the-switch-to-the-gregorian-calendar#:~:text=The%20most%20surreal%20part%20of,skipping%20any%20major%20Christian%20festivals https://www.britannica.com/story/ten-days-that-vanished-the-.... > The most surreal part of implementing the new calendar came in October 1582, when 10 days were dropped from the calendar to bring the vernal equinox from March 11 back to March 21. The church had chosen October to avoid skipping any major Christian festivals.
  • pdonis 2y ago
    The century in which the switch occurred (which was different in different countries) was shorter than the others. As were the decade, year, and month in which the switch occurred.
  • Archelaos 2y ago
    The "original" Julian calendar was indifferent to year number systems. The Romans typically used the consular year, although Marcus Terentius Varro "introduced" the ab urbe condita (AUC) system in the 1st century BC, which was used until the Middle Ages. From the 5th to the 7th century, the anno Diocletiani (also called anno martyrum) after emperor Diocletian was used primarily in the eastern empire (Alexandria), or the anno mundi (after the creation of the world). It was Dionysius Exiguus in the 6th century, who replaced the anno Diocletiani era with the Anno Domini era. His system become popular in the West, but it took a long time until it also was adopted in the East. Its application to years before the birth of Christ is very late: we come across it first in the 15th century, but it was not widespread before the 17th century. All these systems used the Julian system for months and days, but differed in terms of the year and (partialy) in the first day of the year.
• hgomersall 2y ago
  No, the first century began Jan 1, 0000. Whether that year actually existed or not is irrelevant - we shouldn't change our counting system in the years 100, 200 etc.
  • Izkata 2y ago
    The calendar goes from 1 BC to 1 AD, there is no year 0.
    • hgomersall 2y ago
      What does that even mean? Do we allow for the distortion due to the shift from the Julian to Gregorian calendars, such that the nth year is 11 days earlier? Of course not, because that would be stupid. Instead, we accept that the start point was arbitrary and reference to our normal counting system rather than getting hung up about the precise number of days since some arbitrary epoch.
      • pdonis 2y ago
        > What does that even mean? It means just what it says. In the common calendar, the year after 1 BC (or BCE in the new notation) was 1 AD (or CE in the new notation). There was no "January 1, 0000".
        • hgomersall 2y ago
          As I said twice, whether that date actually existed or not is irrelevant.
          • pdonis 2y ago
            > whether that date actually existed or not is irrelevant. No, it isn't, since you explicitly said to start the first century on the date that doesn't exist. What does that even mean?
            • 2y ago
• glitcher 2y ago
  Incorrect, this answer wasn't given in the form of a question ;)