Year ?? of the consuls

[paruos]

la.Wiki says:
135 (aD) Titus Tutilius Lupercus Pontianus et Publius Calpurnius Atilianus Atticus Rufus ...

Therefore, year 146 (aD) is the 11th of Consules T Tutilius Lupercus Pontianus and P Calpurnius Atilianus Atticus Rufus, right?

(Why did the Romans keep counting years of Consules after the Principes, does anyone have knowledge on this matter, or recommend any books? I haven't seen anything about it yet, and, once I write, sometimes I lack proper information, so as to make it creadible ...)

Paruos

 

[paruos]

(er ... not exactly, it seems ...)
http://la.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sextus_Erucius_Clarus

I'm a bit confused on this matter :| :?

 

[Cato]

Consuls served a one-year term and were (generally) not able to stand for re-election. The Romans designated years by simply naming the primary consuls i.e. those installed on Jan 1st.

Augustus found it useful to continue most of the republican forms of government under the empire; he certainly couldn't manage every decision directly, and the traditional offices provided him a convenient way to appease ambitious potential rivals. The consulship was a particularly coveted honor; it was often a capstone to a political career (the first thing chiseled after your name on a tombstone). In fact the primary consuls would often resign after a few months to be replaced by suffect consuls, just so the emperor could spread the honor around; some years had as many as twelve different consuls.

Someone with more time on their hands than I has compiled a list of consuls by year. Using this list, the year we call 146 ACE would be listed in Roman histories as S. Claro Cn. Severo consulibus.

 

[Chamaeleo]

the year we call 146 ACE would be listed in Roman histories as S. Claro Cn. Severo consulibus.

Who's ‘we’?

 

[Cato]

For clarification, let's correct that final line to "the year referred to as AD 146 by some, 146 CE by others would be listed in Roman histories as S. Claro Cn. Severo consulibus."

 

[Matthaeus]

Our current method of numbering the years (anno Domini) since Christ's supposed birth (some say it occurred around 4 BCE) wasn't invented/settled until the 7th or 8th centuries, if I remember correctly, by a certain Dionysius Exiguus. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[Chamaeleo]

Of course, the new era didn't kick in immediately. Christianity had to become a major world religion first. But that's nothing to do with the issue of a few people in the last few decades taking the terms ‘BC’ and ‘AD’ that we have used for centuries, and which are understood by all, and deciding that we all have to use the incomprehensible ‘BCE’ and ‘CE’ instead.

Note that it is exactly the same system, but just with non-standard abbreviations that no one understands, instead of the proper ones. It's based on political correctness, and the idea that normal people are ‘wrong’, but the self-selecting élite who use these wacky new abbreviations are ‘right’. I actually find it offensive.

The same people want us to say ‘personhole’ instead of ‘manhole’.

 

[paruos]

Consuls served a one-year term and were (generally) not able to stand for re-election. The Romans designated years by simply naming the primary consuls i.e. those installed on Jan 1st.

Augustus found it useful to continue most of the republican forms of government under the empire; he certainly couldn't manage every decision directly, and the traditional offices provided him a convenient way to appease ambitious potential rivals. The consulship was a particularly coveted honor; it was often a capstone to a political career (the first thing chiseled after your name on a tombstone). In fact the primary consuls would often resign after a few months to be replaced by suffect consuls, just so the emperor could spread the honor around; some years had as many as twelve different consuls.

Someone with more time on their hands than I has compiled a list of consuls by year. Using this list, the year we call 146 ACE would be listed in Roman histories as S. Claro Cn. Severo consulibus.

I'll take a look at the list, and, if I need anything else, I'll ask ... Thanks anyway, Cato!

(I write stories. This kind of info is very useful to me.)

Thanks again.

Paruos

 

[Matthaeus]

Note that it is exactly the same system, but just with non-standard abbreviations that no one understands, instead of the proper ones. It's based on political correctness, and the idea that normal people are ‘wrong’, but the self-selecting élite who use these wacky new abbreviations are ‘right’. I actually find it offensive.

The same people want us to say ‘personhole’ instead of ‘manhole’.

Why is it that for centuries, as you say, BC and AD have been used without compunction, but in the last few decades some idiots suddently became 'politically correct' and wanted to change that? How do you explain this? Who the hell do they think they are? What gives them the privilege to change words and dictate what's 'right' and 'wrong'? I find this offensive, too. Maybe it's the NWO or Illuminati...lol quid tu putas?

 

[Cato]

lol quid tu putas?

Puto curas multo severiores quam tantulum siglum nobis esse. Certe ira bilisque contra haec sigla culpae haudquaquam comparant. Est minissima innovatio populi causa qui Christiani non sunt, nec in lege nec a "custodibus rectitudinis politicae" jussa est--quasi "Rectitudo Politica" esset aliqua nisi figmentum demagogorum quibus metus publicus maiores census in radiophona sermonali pariet.

Utrum "BC/AD" an "BCE/CE" scribere voles mihi non cura--et numquam a te mutare requieram. Mihi tamen videtur eos hac de re maxime savientes eadem crimina quorum alios accusaverint suadere.

 

[Imber Ranae]

Illuminati ac Novus Ordo Saeclorum? Exaudio eos cupere omnís corporum umores pretiosos nobis debilitare et contaminare. An fortasse haec tantummodo ex Aeneide sunt verba? Nequaquam!

Quomodo "fnord" latine dicitur?

 

[Matthaeus]

Quid est 'fnord'?

 

[Imber Ranae]

Fnord

 

[paruos]

er .. coniuratio, -ónis?