Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [sig] Re: Time Centuries for 600 AD to 1600 AD

Expand Messages
  • MoxFool@aol.com
    In a message dated 10/31/2003 2:56:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, ... Thanks! But, why the change back from 1650 to 1600-03? A nation that draws too broad a
    Message 1 of 22 , Oct 31, 2003
      In a message dated 10/31/2003 2:56:59 PM Eastern Standard Time,
      raeadhani@... writes:

      > I had heard that it stopped with the death of Elizabeth in 1603

      Thanks! 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"
      -Thucydides.
      Tom Nadratowski <A HREF="http://www.footballguys.com/">Footballguys.com</A>


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Nenad Lockic
      ... Pavla, 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
      Message 2 of 22 , Nov 2, 2003
        > This is nitpicky, but new centuries begin on the '01. So 700 was
        > still the 7th century but 701 was the 8th.
        >
        > -Pavla

        Pavla,

        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.

        Regards,
        Lockey
      • redlocks999
        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
        Message 3 of 22 , Nov 5, 2003
          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 sig@yahoogroups.com, "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.
          >
          > -Dmitriy
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.