The "Real Millennium"

Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
1

Here’s another POV regarding Cecil’s discussion of whether the new millenium really began in 2000 or 2001. Link:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_130.html

Try this thought experiment: Suppose that starting yesterday (Jan 1, 2001) we set up a new calendar, called the Straight Dope Calendar. Let’s say we call the current year 999 S.D. Then, next year (2002 AD) will be 1000 S.D.
Questions:

  1. Would next year be the millennium in the Straight Dope Calendar?

  2. If the SD calendar counted back only as far as year 1, rather than year 0, would 2003 AD begin the new millennium?

  3. If the SD calendar only counted as far back as 17 S.D. (perhaps because of the dreaded 17/23 connection), then would the millenium occur in 17 years?

Arguably, the answer to all these questions is NO. Maybe the “Real Millenium” would occur 1,000 years after the new calendar was adopted, regardless of what we chose to call the current year.

Our current calendar was established hundreds of years after 1 AD. One could make a case that the “Real Millenium” was neither 2000 AD nor 2001 AD, but is actually several hundred years in the future.

2

Piffle.

First of all, understand that “decade”, “century”, etc., are exactly parallel to “dozen”. (At least as late as the 1870’s, one would say “a decade of years”.) So “decade”/“century”/“millenium”, in this case, is short for “decade/century/millenium of the A.D. era”.

And no matter when the A.D. era started being used, it bloody well starts with 1 A.D.

…3 B.C. 2 B.C. 1 B.C. 1 A.D. 2 A.D. 3 A.D…

In terms of this hypothetical “S.D.” calendar, then, in order to know when the second millenium begins, we need to know when the first millenium begins. Whenever that is, add 1000 years to it, and there’s your answer.

3

Yes, the millennium started on 1 AD. But what day did that start on?

I seem to recall that up until the middle of the 18th century the new year (in the west, at least) was considered to start on or about the vernal equinox. So the year 1 AD would have started sometime in March.

To confuse things even more we’ve had a switch between the Gregorian and Julian calendars in the last 2000 years. So the real start of the new millennium will be sometime in early April, 2001.

As for myself, I just celebrated the first day of the year with three zeros in it. Drink enough Long Island Teas and you won’t care what bloody year it is.

4

I think I fall squarely into the “it began on Jan 1st, 2000, NOT 2001” camp, for this reason:

If you are saying that the millenium begins in 2001, then you are saying that every measurement of years begins with 1 and ends with 0. Ie, a millenium is x001 to x000, a century is year xx01 to xx00, a decade is xxx0 to xxx1, etc. (Assume Jan 1st for all beginning years and Dec 31st for all ending years, of course.)

So, “this” millenium, according to that thinking, goes from the year 2001 to the year 3000. This century, then, must go from 2001 to 2100. This decade must go from 2001 to 2010.

See where I’m going?

Basically, according to this method of thinking… Then Dec 31st, 1990 was still “the eighties”! Dec 31st, 1980 was still “the seventies!” I don’t believe that ANYONE wants that kind of nonsense.

So, I submit that all measurements of years begin with 0 and end with 9. The millenium was 1000 to 1999. The century was 1900 to 1999. The decade was 1990 to 1999. The critical flaw in this method of thinking is, of course, that the first of any measurement (the first decade, century, etc) has one less year than it should - the first decade only would have 9 years, the first century would only have 99, etc.

If you want to get even nuttier, an arguement could be made that hours are recorded this way. An AM or PM cycle is 12 hours long - but it ends at 11:55. The 12:00 would be more accurately called 0:00 (as in “military” time) because it is the beginning, and ought to start with the smallest number, not the largest.

If one insists on everything is skewed due to the lack of a “zero” year, I suggest we retroactively shift all existing years down a single digit. Year one becomes year zero, year ten becomes year nine… and year 2001 becomes year 2000, no one argues about the “real” millenium, and Dec 31st 1980 is properly part of the eighties and not part of the seventies.

Ultimately, though, who really cares? It’s all perception. Half full, half empty, potato, po-tah-to. I’m just perturbed by the yokels who feel like they’re Jr. Einsteins because their idea of when the millenium begins is a year later.

5

The Millennium has been discussed before. A search picked up a bunch with it somewhere in the thread, but I’ll just link one.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=1453

Somewhere down that thread they make this point, but I’ll reiterate it here. ElanJeff, your point is off base.

“The Eightees” refers to the ten year period 1980 - 1989. (Or maybe 1880-1889.) We don’t have to worry about the first group only being 9 years (aka 0001 - 0009) because we don’t have a label for them anyway. (That’s another longstanding question.) Consistency is overrated anyway. :wink:

I’m sufficiently flexible enough to call 1 BC (or 1 BCE) as 0 AD (or 0 CE), and thus roll the millennium with the zeros, but by the numbering scheme, the proper designation third millennium beginning at 2001.

If you really want something to argue over, try tackling why the third millennium begins with the digit 2. When you sort that one out, then maybe we can get back to this “when does it start” thing. :wink:

6

The usual practice, when being specific, is to project the Julian Calendar backwards (and it goes back to 45 BC anyway), and to specify both Julian and Gregorian dates during the years between 1572 and whenever the locale in question changed.

A futher problem is that, before 1752, the calendar year ended in England on December 31, but the new year didn’t begin until March 25. In between, people might use either year. Modern historians play it safe, and say, for example, that George Washington was born February 11, 1731/32, Old Style. (Which is February 22, 1732, New Style.)

None of which changes the fundamental facts that the year before A.D. 1 is 1 B.C. and that there are, by definition, exactly one thousand years in a millenium.

The “one thousands” millenium and the “nineteen hundreds” century ended Dec. 31, 1999, if you like, but the second millenium and the twentieth century didn’t end until this week.

7

Piffle? That’s a little strong. We could get moved to GD, or even the pit.

There was clearly a religious component to the creation of the calendar–which we pretty much ignore today, especially those who insist that it is 2001CE rather than 2001AD. The calendar was established using a certain notable conception as its base–which, coupled with our move to marking the start of the year at Jan. 1, pretty much makes the start of our next millennium Jan. 1, 2000.

But I understand your point–except for the bloody piffle.

8

If you’re going to go that way, then the third millenium started no later than A.D. 1997, since Herod the Great died in 4 B.C.

But the A.D. calendar epoch still starts at 1 A.D.

9

O no that doesn’t follow at all. The calendar was defined, and we just have to live with it, though the actual marking dates were perhaps wrong.

It is true that certain arboreal sects celebrated the millennium in 1997.

10

The period from 00:00:00 1/1/1970 through 23:59:59 12/31/1979 is the decade of the seventies (which is part of the century “the 1900s”), but the period from 00:00:00 1/1/1971 through 23:59:59 12/31/1980 is the eighth decade of the 20th century A.D. 00:00:00 01/01/2001 begins the 2nd year in the period called the “2000s”, but the first year of the 21st century and 3rd millenium A.D.

You see?

But everybody knows the 80s didn’t end (culturally, anyway) until about 1993. You’re comparing 2 different systems of, well, not measurement, but something.

11

See where you’re going? Yes, nowhere.

You are mixing two different naming conventions for years. One is cardinal, the other ordinal.

The 1980’s are the four digit years that began with “198”: 1980-1989 inclusive. However, the 199[sup]th[/sup] Decade AD was composed of the years 1981-1990 inclusive.

Similarly, the 1900’s were the years 1900-1999 inclusive, but the 20[sup]th[/sup] Century AD was 1901-2000 inclusive.

One more example: the 1000’s were the years 1000-1999; the 2[sup]nd[/sup] Millennium AD was the years 1001-2000.

So those that said that the calendar turning from 1999 to 2000 was the start of a new century and a new millennium weren’t wrong as long as they didn’t say the 21[sup]st[/sup] Century or the 3[sup]th[/sup] Millennium. If they said it was the start of the 20-hundreds (awkward, I know) or the 2000’s, then they were right.

12

'Course, they weren’t wrong if they did say the 21[sup]st[/sup] Century or the 3[sup]th[/sup] Millennium, but neither were the ones who said that it changed from 2000 to 2001.

13

3th?

(Sorry, I couldn’t resist.)

14

Hey! Didn’t I start a thread with pretty much the same argument? You know, millenum = 1-2001 and decade = 1990-1999 (and 2000-2009). At least that’s what I plan to bring up if this issue ever gets mentioned again to forstall a massive flood of complaints about the Real Millennium Really Beginning in 2001, Really. For Real.

Hell, why not. Make it 1994 for all I care.

15

Because of the leap year adjustments.
[ul]
[li]1[sup]st[/sup] Millennium AD - was 365,250 days long, because they used the Julian Calendar, with leap day adjustments every 4 years.[/li][li]2[sup]nd[/sup] Millennium AD - was 365,237 days long, because the Gregorian Calendar was instituted. 10 extra days that shouldn’t’ve been in the 1[sup]st[/sup] were subtracted from October, 1582, so that 10/4/82 was followed by 10/15/82. Also, 1700, 1800, and 1900 weren’t leap years.[/li][li]3[sup]rd[/sup] Millennium AD - The first full Gregorian Millennium. Eight century years (2100, 2200, 2300, 2500, 2600, 2700, 2900, and 3000) won’t be leap years, so 365,250 - 8 = 365,242 days.[/li][li]4[sup]th[/sup] Millennium AD - The second full Gregorian Millennium. Seven century years (3100, 3300, 3400, 3500, 3700, 3800, 3900) won’t be leap years, so this millennium will be 365,243 days long.[/li]
Or will it? Cecil once posed that the Gregorian Calendar will need a one day adjustment every 4000 years, so 4000 AD might not be a leap year, and the millennium would also be 365,242 days long. This way, only every other even ordered millennium (6[sup]th[/sup], 10[sup]th[/sup], 14[sup]th[/sup], etc) will be 365,243 days long.
[/ul]

I’m just glad I’ll be dead (hopefully) before this whole “when-does-the-century-start-and-is-it-a-leap-year” mess starts up again.

16

Some of those 10 days were extra, from the second millennium. But…the average length of a millennium should end up being around 365,242.5, as your third and fourth millenniums show–so why were the first two adjusted so that their average length was 365,243.5? What’s with the extra two days?

17

The precise Gregorian adjustment was done to ensure that the spring equinox would occur on March 21, which they believed to be the “right” day for the most reliable anchor point.

There is a story (not known with absolute certainty to be true or false) that the early decades of the Julian Calendar were fouled up due to a miscommunication with the Graeco-Egyptian astronomer who provided Caesar with his data. “Every fourth year” in Greek (or English, for that matter) translated literally into Latin comes out meaning what we would call “every third year”, and the story is that, for a while, leap years were placed every third year, until the mistake was discovered, and some leap years were skipped to correct the problem. All this, if it happened at all, happened right around the BC/AD line.