|
|
Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
Roger Musson (e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk)
Thu, 17 Aug 1995 11:12:35
In article <CINDY.95Aug16125743@bokfink.nvg.unit.no> cindy@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf) writes:
>From: cindy@nvg.unit.no (Cindy Kandolf)
>Subject: Re: Why not 13 months? (Was La Systeme Metrique)
>Date: 16 Aug 1995 10:57:43 GMT
>In article <808511484snz@foxhouse.demon.co.uk> Fred Read
><Fred@foxhouse.demon.co.uk> writes:
>> If the Romans DIDN'T add two months to the year (as I have always
>> believed to be the case) when did September, October, November and
>> ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^
>> December (respectively the seventh, eigth, ninth and tenth months
>> ^^^
>> of the ancient Roman calender) become the ninth, tenth, eleventh
>> and twelfth months of the modern calendar?
>When the start of the year was moved from March to January.
Which happened, incidentally, for the most trivial reason. I can't remember
the exact chapter and verse off-hand, but there was a revolt in Galicia, and
the only general in the area couldn't take command of the troops for another
three months because appointments ran from start of year to end of year.
Rather than change the rules, they changed the start of the year!
If anyone cares, I can look up the precise details.
Roger Musson
British Geological Survey
e_rmwm@va.nmh.ac.uk
|