|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Ask The Expert > Roman Years | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Frank
Adept
      
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 630
| Posted 8/17/2006 11:14 PM (GMT -5) |   | There were many factors that contributed to the fall of Rome. In your story you'll have to account for and counter-act all of them if you want the empire to survive beyond the fifth century.
But, if it's any comfort to you, many ancient Roman ways never really left us. Classical knowledge and culture (and attitudes and politics and law) remained dominant in the West until the industrial revolution. Even today in America, thousands of miles and years away from that ancient city, Roman (and, by extension, Greek) influence is inescapable.
That might be why we are still fascinated by ancient Rome: we recognize them as being very much like us, not just biologically but culturally as well. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tloluvin
Stablehand
Date Joined Apr 2006
Total Posts : 3
| Posted 4/28/2006 5:33 PM (GMT -5) | | Hello Raph!
When not reading Sword & Sorcery, I lecture Roman history at university, so your question is right up my alley; prepare for a somewhat verbose answer, though.
The counting of years from the founding of Rome, called “ab urbe condita”, was known in the Roman Empire, but it was almost never used at all. It would have been so common as a modern Christian in the western world dating by the muslim calendar. It was invented by a Roman historian and only ever used by other scholars. So forget this one.
The most common way of dating, going back to the Republic, was by the consuls, the two officials jointly heading the state. They were elected every year, and the year was named after them; it would be termed “the year of the consulate of Gaius Rabirius and Lucius Septimius Geta”, for instance. This required people to know who was consul in what year and might therefore seem somewhat impractical; but that’s the way it was. There were lists with the consuls of every year displayed prominently in public places around the Empire, for ease of reference. In Latin these lists were called “fasti consulares”.
This means of dating was used right until the end of the Empire and after that into Byzantine times, as the office of consul didn’t perish with the end of the Republic; rather, the consuls were now, not in theory but in practice, relegated to being something like figureheads of the senate and no longer elected by the people, but the senate itself, or rather nominated by the emperor.
Based upon the emperor a new system of counting years came into being, starting with the later years of Augustus – around the birth of Christ. A year would now be termed the “first, second, third, etc., year of (insert the name of the emperor)”. This was of course easier than dating by consuls, but, once again, the former did not die out or even become rare by any means.
Note that in this way of counting years, some years have two names. As emperors usually do not die on the last day of the year and new ones assume ofice on the first day of the following one, the last year of any given emperor will usually be the first year of the next one.
If you want to use something like the Christian era, please remember that there is no year 0 – on 1 B.C., the first year before Christ, follows immediately 1 A.D., the first year of Christ. Traditionally, Christ was therefore born at the end of 1 A.D. This can get tricky when calculating spans of time from B.C. to A.D. Somebody born in 3 B.C. is 1 year old in 2 B.C., 2 years old in 1 B.C. and 3 years old in 1 A.D., not 4 years as one might surmise. This is due to the lack of the year 0.
Another possibility, though not really classical Roman, would be counting from the creation of the world. In the Byzantine Empire this was calculated from the Greek bible to have happened in the year 5508 B.C., and this was increasingly used in dating – “in the 6150th year of creation” would be 641 A.D., as 1 has to be deducted whenever calculating dates over the birth of Christ (see above).
Being a historian of political history I have never concerned myself with the date of the birth of Christ, but it seems that it would actually have been 3 or 4 years before the date given.
As to leap years – the Romans did have those, too, right from the beginnig, but not at regular intervals. It was the duty of the pontifex maximus, the second highest priest of Rome, to determine when it was time for a leap year. In those years, february was shortened to 23 days and an additional short month, a “mensis intercalaris” added to the year.
When Caesar was in Egypt, he got acquainted with the local superior astronomy, and being dictator as well as pontifex maximus, had the Roman calendar changed to one being based on the sun instead of on the moon (as the modern muslim calendar still is). The new calendar was drawn up the Egyptian Greek Sosigenes (from the famous library of Alexandria) and was called the “Julian” one – after Gaius Julius Caesar. This calendar made every fourth year a leap year, by adding an additional day between the 24th and 25th of february. On calendars of of leap years from as late as the 19th century, it is still the 25th february that is marked as the leap day.
The problem leading to the new reform by pope Gregory in the late 16th century is that the year is actually not 365 ¼ days long, but some 11 minutes shorter than that. After over 1600 years, these 11 minutes a year had added up to over 10 days – so 10 days had to be dropped to synchronize date and season once again.
I hope this does help and was not too much. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 266
| Posted 3/25/2006 4:42 AM (GMT -5) | | I was getting the information for a story for Paradox's Flash Alt. History contest, but unfortunately it never got off the ground. My original idea was to have Jesus be spared from crucifixtion, and end up dying of old age. This wouldn't neccessarily stop Christianity from coming into being, but would most likely have kept it from becoming a major religion. In all likelyhood, Constantine wouldn't have converted, and theoretically Rome wouldn't have fallen.
I think my main problem with getting the story beyond the planning stages was the simple fact that the ammount of changes to our history that this would cause is staggering. No Dark Age, no Crusades, no Inquisition--and all replaced with other wars and historical events. Even many major historical figures might never have been born, because of the immensity of the changes. It was all too much to fit in a short story, much less a flash story (even with a generous 1500 word definition of flash).
I've gone on to other projects in the meantime, so I don't see this particular story getting done. But who knows, I may re-visit the concept somewhere down the road. Even if I don't, you never know when information like that could come in handy, and I sincerely thank all who responded to my original question.
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Duke.Modulus
Stablehand
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 1
| Posted 3/23/2006 6:30 PM (GMT -5) | | | The Roman calender didn't have a leap year, so it would slip backwards(?) one day every four years. People in the Renaissance called the Roman calender the "Julian" system and they had to eliminate half a month to recalibrate the calender back so it was where it was supposed to be. They added the leap year at that time. Just random junk info - maybe you can use it in your novel. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 266
| Posted 1/12/2006 8:13 PM (GMT -5) | | Thanks for the help guys. Gives me something to go on.
Robert, I haven't read that one. I'll have to see if I can find it. Thanks.
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
|
ScrewMoonshine
Adept
Date Joined Aug 2005
Total Posts : 905
| Posted 1/12/2006 8:00 AM (GMT -5) | | Mike, have you read Fireball by John Christopher? Great novel about two boys who travel to an alternate world where the Roman Empire didn't fall. Might give you an idea or two, and as it's for young adults, you can probably read it in just a few sittings.
Robert Orme | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kuroboshii
Shogun
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 549
| Posted 1/12/2006 6:05 AM (GMT -5) | | | | |
|
BethS
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 751
| Posted 1/12/2006 5:07 AM (GMT -5) | | quote:
Originally posted by Suuran Songforge
As this article shows, the traditional date the Romans used for the founding of their city was 753 B.C. So, according to Beth's year, the birth of Christ would be 756 years from the founding of the city.
Math has never been my strong suit, but I'm thinking that if Jesus was born in 3 BC, then that would be 750 years from the time of Rome's founding--wouldn't it? 756 years would put his birth at 3 AD.
Beth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Kuroboshii
Shogun
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 549
| Posted 1/12/2006 4:59 AM (GMT -5) | | I'm not exactly an expert on history, but I do know a good chunk, and I can tell you for certain that the Romans marked time from the founding of the city of Rome. There's actually an exact Latin phrase for it that I can try to hunt up later...something like con urbis condite (from the founding of the city--does anyone know more Latin than I do?)
As this article shows, the traditional date the Romans used for the founding of their city was 753 B.C. So, according to Beth's year, the birth of Christ would be 756 years from the founding of the city.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Ancient_Rome
Sean T. M. Stiennon (AKA Suuran Songforge)
For information about me, see my author page at www.sfreader.com/authors/seanstiennon. | | Back to Top | | |
|
BethS
Adept
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 751
| Posted 1/12/2006 2:59 AM (GMT -5) | | Mike,
I can't help you with the Roman calendar, but as to Jesus's birth--no one really knows for sure. It is normally reckoned to be about 3 BC, give or take a couple-three years, depending on whose research you believe.
Beth | | Back to Top | | |
|
Raph
Stubborn Scholar
Date Joined Oct 2004
Total Posts : 266
| Posted 1/11/2006 11:08 PM (GMT -5) | | Don't know if there are any experts in this field here, but figured I'd take a shot. I'm beginning work on a story that involves a Roman empire that didn't fall. My question is, what type of system did they use for counting the years. I know they didn't use B.C. and A.D., but what exactly did they use? And what specific Roman year was Jesus born? That would give me an idea of what year to place my story in. Anyone help would be greatly appreciated.
Mike O. | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Thursday, January 08, 2009 5:37 PM (GMT -5)
There are a total of 85,850 posts in 7,124 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 19 new threads and 79 reply posts. View Active Threads
| | Who's Online | This forum has 1335 registered members. Please welcome our newest member, rowdyphantom.
15 Guest(s), 0 Registered Member(s) are currently online. Details
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP2
dotNetBB © 2000-2009
(c) SFReader |
|
|
|