BC/AD vs. BCE/CE

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Haupt. Dietrich
You know it's pretty sad that people are all uppity about the date system. BC/AD is the way it has been and the way it should be period. The BCE/CE date system is the same thing only it doesn't offend atheists. Given what's going on in the world today it's just petty to flip your lid because you see BC/AD. There's too many other petty little things that bother people. Does it really matter? Ask yourself, does political correctness/incorrectness really matter in the end? Live and let be. We got other beastly things to worry about like terrorism.

Speaking as someone who is 1) Not an athiest and 2) isn't uppity, I must stress that the BCE/CE method of dating history has nothing to do with mollifying atheists. It is about incorporating non-European histories into a global view of history. To do this, we must take into account that most of the world is not of Judeo-Christian background. I think the BCE/CE method is the easiest way of avoiding massive overhauls of the dating system while still acknowledging history is written by all who participate, not just Europeans.

[CobraA1]

Doesn't really matter to me. Whatever they choose, you can change the text file if you don't like it. It's not like it changes the gameplay or anything.

[jdd2007]

like i said before, it doesnt really matter.

[PGM]

Originally posted by fluffy
Thinking about it, why isn't his birthyear 0AD, as '1AD' means 'one year after his birth' and '1BC' means 'one year before his birth?? Seems like there is a year missing....

The Roman culture didn't "have" the number 0. So, there was never a year 0, and Jesus was born on 1AD.
That is also the explanation to why the 21st century didn't begin until 2001. If there had been a year 0, the 21st century would have started on 2000.

[dainbramaged13]

you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by PGM


The Roman culture didn't "have" the number 0. So, there was never a year 0, and Jesus was born on 1AD.
That is also the explanation to why the 21st century didn't begin until 2001. If there had been a year 0, the 21st century would have started on 2000.

I would also like to mention that Jesus was not, in fact, born in 1 AD. He was born sometime between 4 BC and 6 BC. Gregory screwed up his arithmetic in divising his calendar and got the year wrong. So technically we should be in the year 2005 to 2007 right now.

Cheers.

[fluffy]

edited

[Adagio]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

It's kinda scary to see all those people taking this poll that seriously

[JellyDonut]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
you guys are taking this poll too sreriously.. this poll is a joke, i suggested it on the other forum as a joke, and the person who posted it knows it is a joke. how come you cant see it!?

He's right.

But you can post a poll here about anything and people will get into a historical argument. It's entertainment. So just sit back and enjoy the show.

[campmajor!]

Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

[Saint Marcus]

come to think of it, BC/AD makes no sense at all. I've played games where I changed the tech paradigm to 100/10 and hadn't researched monotheism till the year 1500 or so. How could Christ have walked on the earth if there wasn't monotheism? I mean, he could have walked there, but he wouldn't be "christ" as in son of the one and only God.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

hehe

[Oldenbarnevelt]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
BCE/CE is now the standard and accepted method of date notation among historical scholars. It is done because "Before Christ" is meaningless to 3/5ths of the world.

I think, being a historical simulation of many different civs, CIV3 should either do the BCE/CE or simply start at year 1 and go to 6000, as someone else said on another board.

I couldn't agree more! Using CE will make "our" time scale more palatable to those with other systems -- Muslims, Jews, Chinese, ... -- and also to the growing numbers of atheists and agnostics in the Western world. Time measuring is fundamental and universal; it should no longer reflect religious bias. CIV, of all games, should be neutral and universal, and therefore adopt CE.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by campmajor!
Well, I vote for BC/AD, but I won't argue with Boris, considering his signature....

You are just jealous of my irrefutable, magnificent and airtight logic and reasoning power. Bask in my sunshine!

Hee.

[Adagio]

Talking about the timescale...why don't the whole world not change to a whole new kind of date, which means today is year 0 and there are 3 sundays a week