>e.g. 13th century >is actually 1200s WHAT ASSHOLE STARTED THIS?

>>2681412
1-100 is the first century, duh

Because the first century would have had to have been from the years 1-100 you stupid fucking frog poster.

>>2681417
This

Were we supposed to call it the nilth century? We didn't even understand 0 back then

What should the years from 0 to 99 be called if 100 to 199 are the first century? It just makes sense to count up from the 1st century up rather than start from the 0th century.

>>2681412
You can't call the years 1-100 the 0th Century you fucking tard, because it's the 1st Century.
This has to be bait.

>first century BC
>it's actually the last century BC

>frogposter
>retard

pick 2

>>2681417
>>2681420
>>2681424
>>2681426
>>2681428
It's just bad style. You're needlessly confusing your audience.

And just give 0-100 a special name. Like the Transition Century or something. Makes sense, that's when Rome transitioned into an empire

>>2681449
>time progresses
>year decrements
How did antiquity cope?

File: 1492250262654.jpg (21KB, 620x416px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 620x416px

>>2681412
I know that feel famalam, even nowadays my mind occasionally spergs over this.

Speaking of which, how did the ancients know when Jesus would be born?

>>2681493
They couldnt compete. That's why they died.

>>2681462
>You're needlessly confusing your audience.
Only retarded Americans.

>>2681462

??? what audience are you referring to? Dates are organized numerically because thats how numbers are, you absolute mongoloid.

>>2681454
Woah you surprised me I thought it was going to be "pick one"

>>2681420
>>2681428
But 1-99 happened before the 1st century. Why would that be different than calling what actually happens during the 100-199 when the 1st century was reached.

>>2681509
Tacitus/ Josephus reports + date of herod's early reign = rough guess

>>2681519
>>2681520
Give me one arguement as to why it's NOT bad style.

If...
>"Ten men bought 20 books."
...is good style.

While...
>"Ten men bought twenty books."
...bad style.


Then why the FUCK, isn't...
>"1245 is a year in the 13th century"
...bad style?

>>2681554
Would you say a man who is 43 years old is in his Fifth decade?

>>2681554
Those two examples are completely unrelated you idiot.

>>2681559
No I wouldn't because such a numbering scheme would needlessly confuse who I'm talking to.

I'd say "He's in his 40s." Which, by the way, is how history SHOULD be dated. "In the 1200s..." 13th century is less concise and confusing.

>>2681554
>Im too retarded to understand how simple numbers work, but instead of learning them i want the entire mathemathical sistem to adapt to me

>>2681412

Of all the dumb threads on /his/ this has to be the worst.

Bumping because, based on probabilities, it will knock a Hitler thread off the board.

>>2681678
>bumping because it will knock a thread off the board
>being this new

that's not how 4chan works faggot

>>2681554
In the 13x100 +99 -0 timeframe it was the years 1300 to 1399
Bet you find french retarded

>>2681690
>4channers don't use the phrase 'bump' as a quick post to prevent their thread being archived and also to prevent being banned for commenting nothing of note

>>2681690

>being this much of a newfag

I've been here since you were an infant.

>>2681412

I agree. Death to everyone who thinks this is acceptable.

So we 20th century then?