Re: [sig] Re: Time Centuries for 600 AD to 1600 AD
- In a message dated 10/31/2003 2:56:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
> I had heard that it stopped with the death of Elizabeth in 1603Thanks! But, why the change back from 1650 to 1600-03?
"A nation that draws too broad a difference between its scholars and its
warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools"
Tom Nadratowski <A HREF="http://www.footballguys.com/">Footballguys.com</A>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> This is nitpicky, but new centuries begin on the '01. So 700 wasPavla,
> still the 7th century but 701 was the 8th.
you are right. Milions of people beleived that waiting New Year 2000.
they waited new millenium. So, they are making mistake counting 0 year
which not exist. At the time scale after -1 (1. year B.C.) next is A.D.
1. So, A.D. is last year oif first decade, A.D. 100 is the last year of
first century, etc.
- Although the charter states pre-17th Century I have found documents that say 600
-1600 or 1650. Needless to say there are well-founded arguments for both sides. I
mean what would we do without all those handsome cavaliers & winged hussars
striding about? Besides to end it at 1485 would be a shame that's 165 years of
intellectual and cultural ferment. While I respect your predilection towards the early
ages I must protest ; )
Just my two silver groshi, Julia
--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dmitriy Ryaboy" <dvryaboy@h...> wrote:
> > I usually tell people we go "through" the Reign of
> > Elizabeth I, which puts the end date at 1603.
> > --Sfandra
> I just lie and say we stop at 1485, Battle of Bosworth. (No, I don't
> really do that, it's a joke...). I like the concept though. Fall of
> Rome to the end of the War of the Roses, nice and neat. Coincides
> with Russian history markers well, too.