1. Forum
  2. Usenet
  3. REC.ARTS.SF.WRITTEN

  • (ReacTor) Counting the Days: Five SFF Approaches to Calendars

    From James Nicoll@21:1/5 to All on Wed Jun 18 14:20:33 2025
    Counting the Days: Five SFF Approaches to Calendars

    So many different ways of measuring history and the passage of time...

    https://reactormag.com/counting-the-days-five-sff-approaches-to-calendars/
    --
    My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
    My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
    My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
    My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Garrett Wollman@21:1/5 to James Nicoll on Wed Jun 18 22:52:20 2025
    In article <102uhvh$f8$1@reader1.panix.com>,
    James Nicoll <jdnicoll@panix.com> wrote:
    Counting the Days: Five SFF Approaches to Calendars

    So many different ways of measuring history and the passage of time...

    https://reactormag.com/counting-the-days-five-sff-approaches-to-calendars/

    Some examples of my own acquaintance:

    Graydon Saunders' Commonweal uses the French revolutionary calendar,
    but with a couple of subtle modifications: first, the Commonweal is in
    the southern hemisphere, so the months are aligned to local seasons
    rather than Paris ca. 1789; and second -- this took me quite a while
    to notice -- Saunders has moved Festival, and thus the turning of the
    year, from the end of summer to the beginning. There is off-hand
    mention of pre-Commonweal dating systems but not in enough detail to
    identify them.

    Diane Duane's Middle Kingdoms use a calendar based on four 90-day
    seasons, with the equivalent of the Gregorian adjustment implemented
    by dropping the 208th day of every 128th year. The extra five days
    (six days for leap years) are the "Dreadnights", intercalated at the
    winter solstice. I believe there have been similar calendars proposed
    IRL but don't know what they were called. In an appendix, Duane notes
    that the people of the Middle Kingdoms do reckon by the lunar cycle as
    well, they just don't use this for dating; the lunar and solar cycles
    coincide for Opening Night every 19 years, which is called Nineteen
    Years' Night, obviously enough. The dragons, being interstellar
    travelers, have their own ways of timekeeping.

    (I should go back and read those books and stories, given that it's
    Pride Month and all, but I'm still trying to finish my Hugo reading
    before the voting closes.)

    -GAWollman

    --
    Garrett A. Wollman | "Act to avoid constraining the future; if you can, wollman@bimajority.org| act to remove constraint from the future. This is Opinions not shared by| a thing you can do, are able to do, to do together."
    my employers. | - Graydon Saunders, _A Succession of Bad Days_ (2015)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to All on Mon Jun 23 01:02:10 2025
    On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:32:42 -0400, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com>
    wrote:

    In the Vorkosigan Saga, Barrayar uses calendars based on the Emperors >birthdays (for things like taxes, for example). I think they also use
    the Emperor's reigns for keeping track of years.

    Is this something like the modern British celebrating "The Queen's
    Birthday" (24th May) where I didn't find out till my last year of high
    school that the Queen in question was Victoria not Elizabeth.....

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to rja.carnegie@gmail.com on Mon Jun 23 01:05:58 2025
    On Sat, 21 Jun 2025 15:35:31 +0100, Robert Carnegie
    <rja.carnegie@gmail.com> wrote:

    The actual Earth orbit year is 365 and a fraction
    days, and apparently was back then, too. And 365
    is one day off being 52 whole weeks.

    Which is why only 1 out of 4 century ending dates (e.g. 1700, 1800,
    1900, 2000 etc) is a leap year - because the fraction ISN'T 1/4 and
    that 3/4 00's years thing is an attempt to keep things in order.

    Not that that will impact any adult living now since the next 'ending
    in hundred leap year' will be 2400. That said, my 3 year old
    grand-daughter has a very good chance of seeing the 22nd century -
    hope she is there to lift a glass and remember us then!

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From WolfFan@21:1/5 to Tony Nance on Tue Jun 24 00:06:08 2025
    On Jun 23, 2025, Tony Nance wrote
    (in article <103cdjg$1e7o7$1@dont-email.me>):

    On 6/23/25 4:02 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
    On Wed, 18 Jun 2025 22:32:42 -0400, Tony Nance <tnusenet17@gmail.com> wrote:

    In the Vorkosigan Saga, Barrayar uses calendars based on the Emperors birthdays (for things like taxes, for example). I think they also use
    the Emperor's reigns for keeping track of years.
    Is this something like the modern British celebrating "The Queen's Birthday" (24th May) where I didn't find out till my last year of high school that the Queen in question was Victoria not Elizabeth.....

    It seems to be not quite the same. In the Vorkosigan Saga, the date
    moves to the actual birthday of the current Emperor. On that day, for example, the Counts give the Emperor a substantial amount of money -- as
    a birthday gift, of course, since obviously the Counts could never do something as unseemly as pay taxes to the Emperor/Empire.

    wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there were (IIRC) three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to All on Fri Jul 18 10:14:18 2025
    On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
    wrote:

    wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there were (IIRC) >three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?

    Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3 emperor
    years in the Roman Empire.

    I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
    keel over before they had to fork it out...

    Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than whichever Legion was based in Rome.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul S Person@21:1/5 to All on Sat Jul 19 08:57:16 2025
    On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:14:18 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
    wrote:

    wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there were (IIRC) >>three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?

    Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3 emperor
    years in the Roman Empire.

    This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the Vorkosigan
    Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which was founded on
    what.

    Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
    Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>

    So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.

    I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
    keel over before they had to fork it out...

    Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than >whichever Legion was based in Rome.

    They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors (and
    would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their Legion(s)
    and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.

    Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods where son
    succeeded father for several generations were much better, at least as
    far as civil war went.
    --
    "Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
    Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
    Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Ted Nolan @21:1/5 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Sat Jul 19 16:31:10 2025
    In article <9mfn7kp293qk8deovljv09rnrin7mmjecp@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:14:18 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
    wrote:

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan <akwolffan@zoho.com>
    wrote:

    wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that there were (IIRC) >>>three Emperors in one year and a few of the Counts were short of cash?

    Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3 emperor
    years in the Roman Empire.

    This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the Vorkosigan
    Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which was founded on
    what.

    Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
    Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>

    So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.

    I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
    keel over before they had to fork it out...

    Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than >>whichever Legion was based in Rome.

    They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors (and
    would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their Legion(s)
    and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.

    Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods where son >succeeded father for several generations were much better, at least as
    far as civil war went.

    Adopted sons were best. (And the Romans had a tradition of adult adoption).
    --
    columbiaclosings.com
    What's not in Columbia anymore..

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From The Horny Goat@21:1/5 to psperson@old.netcom.invalid on Sun Jul 20 00:07:16 2025
    On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 08:57:16 -0700, Paul S Person
    <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the Vorkosigan
    Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which was founded on
    what.


    While I've read all or nearly all the Miles books I was pretty sure on
    the Roman emperors (surer than on Miles as a matter of fact but hadn't
    taken time to look them up again - and all of the following names are
    familiar - just couldn't remember whether they were in the same year
    or over 12 months over two years. (And read both Tom Holland's
    Dominion and his book on Rome since April)

    Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
    Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>

    So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.

    I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and or #2
    keel over before they had to fork it out...

    Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one other than >>whichever Legion was based in Rome.

    They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors (and
    would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their Legion(s)
    and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.

    True though when there were rival emperors backed by different legions
    with neither in Rome at that point the usual outcome was that each
    marched on Rome and fought it out somewhere nearby.

    Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods where son >succeeded father for several generations were much better, at least as
    far as civil war went.

    Even Nero's reign (which was one of those you cited) was relatively
    'good times' for the Empire though I remind you that aging Emperors
    routinely adopted their successors. (Which was one of the better ways
    of avoiding succession crises)

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Michael Ikeda@21:1/5 to ted@loft.tnolan.com on Sun Jul 20 12:55:33 2025
    ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in news:me1vieF4e2aU1@mid.individual.net:

    In article <9mfn7kp293qk8deovljv09rnrin7mmjecp@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
    On Fri, 18 Jul 2025 10:14:18 -0700, The Horny Goat
    <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:

    On Tue, 24 Jun 2025 00:06:08 -0400, WolfFan
    <akwolffan@zoho.com> wrote:

    wasn’t there a throwaway line or two about the time that
    there were (IIRC) three Emperors in one year and a few of the
    Counts were short of cash?

    Don't know about the last part but there were definitely 3
    emperor years in the Roman Empire.

    This is very confusing, as we appear to be mixing up "the
    Vorkosigan Saga" and the Roman Empire. And I don't care which
    was founded on what.

    Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
    Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>

    So, if this is a contest, the Roman Empire wins by 1 Emperor.

    I suppose the counts might have gotten lucky in having #1 and
    or #2 keel over before they had to fork it out...

    Of course there were plenty of Emperors "elected" by no one
    other than whichever Legion was based in Rome.

    They didn't have to be based in Rome. A fair number of Emperors
    (and would-be Emperors) were proclaimed to be Emperor by their
    Legion(s) and then marched on Rome to expell the current one.

    Those were not good times for the Roman Empire. The periods
    where son succeeded father for several generations were much
    better, at least as far as civil war went.

    Adopted sons were best. (And the Romans had a tradition of
    adult adoption).

    If you exclude adult adoption, I don't think there IS an example of
    "son succeeding father for several generatioons" in the Roman
    empire. At least if you require "several" to be more than two. I
    THINK there's at least one case of two.

    (And I haven't systematically checked whether there's a "several"
    in the Eastern Roman empire but from what I've seen there doesn't
    seem to be a lot of "several" there either.)

    The Roman empire didn't tend to have lengthy dynasties.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Robert Woodward@21:1/5 to Michael Ikeda on Sun Jul 20 10:00:50 2025
    In article <XnsB3225ACC58399mmikedacomcastnet@85.12.62.254>,
    Michael Ikeda <mmikeda@erols.com> wrote:

    ted@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan <tednolan>) wrote in news:me1vieF4e2aU1@mid.individual.net:

    In article <9mfn7kp293qk8deovljv09rnrin7mmjecp@4ax.com>,
    Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

    (Snip)


    Nero was followed by four emperors in the next year (12 months):
    Galba, Otho, Vitellius, and Vespasian.

    <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors>


    (Snip, re inheritance of Empire in Rome)


    Adopted sons were best. (And the Romans had a tradition of
    adult adoption).

    If you exclude adult adoption, I don't think there IS an example of
    "son succeeding father for several generatioons" in the Roman
    empire. At least if you require "several" to be more than two. I
    THINK there's at least one case of two.

    (And I haven't systematically checked whether there's a "several"
    in the Eastern Roman empire but from what I've seen there doesn't
    seem to be a lot of "several" there either.)

    The Macedonian Dynasty (c. 9th-11th Centuries) did last several
    generations, albeit with some hiccups (BTW, while that period wasn't the
    focus of Turtledove's PhD dissertation, he has written 2 fantasy
    trilogies that were inspired by the Macedonian Dynasty).

    --
    "We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
    Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_. ‹-----------------------------------------------------
    Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)