Ö÷²¥´óÐã

Ancient and Archaeology  permalink

AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

• Message 1. 

  Posted by genex1 (U3127669) on Sunday, 8th July 2007

  One thing with all historical events that I would like to know the answer to, is all dates pre B.C how were they referred to by the Romans. When did they adopt A.D if at all.

  Link to this forum: AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by Richie (U1238064) on Sunday, 8th July 2007

  Rome counted its years by two methods. AUC (don't ask me the latin full version I think its Ad urba something) but it basically counted the years from the founding of Rome by Romulus. If memory serves me correctly by the time of 1AD in Rome it was something along the lines of 750AUC give or take a decade as I am working from memory.
  
  Additionaly Rome also counted years by the Consuls, so you would have in the year of Marius and Cinna for example (though highly unlikely to be quoted as both men had a bit of odur as a result of that particular consulship)
  
  The offical adoption of AD as the reckoning system was what? something up in the 500's AD I think. but again that is working off memory.
  
  There were several accouting systems in use during this time, you have the Hebrew calander, the Egyptian, I would assume that the Greeks had some sort of independant calander but I've never really heard anything about it. The Mesopatianium calender was also still in use and of course you had the easy to use (but a bugger to do retrospectives with) regnal years

  Link to this forum: AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

  Report message2

• Message 3

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 8th July 2007

  They dated events from the foundation of Rome to put them in general historical contexts. For more recent history (and when giving the current date) they referred to the consulates in effect that year, or later who held the position of emperor.
  
  The use of Anno Domini didn't come about until long after the fall of Rome. In 525 a monk called Dionysius Exiguus decided to settle the whole 'when does Easter happen' problem for once and for all. In doing so he worked out a probable date for christ's birth and worked forward (his first discovery I assume being that he was doing all this in 525AD). Surprisingly, it was Britain's early adoption of his calculations that helped ensure they became standard. British missionary and monastic expansion in Europe brought "Little Dennis's" calendar with them. By the tenth century the pope, probably because the orthodox christians showed how handy a standard could be for bureaucratic purposes, opted to implement the little Romanian's calendar as the only standard permissable. Ironically even by this time a debate had long arisen over Dionysius's 'starting date' (out by 4 years, even by his own criteria), but apparently the need for a standard overrode all such quibbles.

  Link to this forum: AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

  Report message3

• Message 4

  , in reply to message 2.

  Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 8th July 2007

  AUC - ad urbae conditum, 'from the year of the foundation of the city'. To get BC you subtract from 754; to get AD you add to 753.

  Link to this forum: AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

  Report message4

• Message 5

  , in reply to message 4.

  Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 9th July 2007

  In ancient times each city had its own kind of archives and thus based on those would had constructed a timeline. Romans used both the time of the construction of their city (754 B.C.) as well as the consuls which is similar to Athenians that used both the timeline of the Olympics (i.e. 776 B.C.) as well as that of their elected generals. It is characteristic that for their convinience, e.g. to describe a date like 476 B.C. they would not use so much a "300 A.O" (after first Olympic) style but a "on the year of 75th Olympic", thus 477 B.C. would be "3 years after the 74th Olympic" or "1 year before the 75th Olympic". Similarly though you had timelines based on the Delphian and Isthmian games or of course based on the local traditions of each state.
  
  It is true though that there was no general consensus on dating thus naturally the early Byzantine Emperors having forced christianism as the only religion of the Empire, they naturally enforced a calendar based on that religion and the 4 years mistake was "small letters" for them as at the end of the day, they were more interested in their bureaucratic system that would not be affected by such an error and not so much if say the reign of a king actually started not 800 years but 804 years after the first Olympic games). Anyway even ancient Greeks were not certain if the dating of the Olympics was 100% correct since it is known that there were Olympics prior to the 776 B.C., though that one was said to be the first recorded (and there were records for each Olympiad kept in the Olympic installations at Olympia). Similarly Romans were not 100% certain of the date of the construction of their city but most possibly where quite close to it.

  Link to this forum: AD/BC The time line according to the Romans

  Report message5

Back to top