If the year 2010 was called 2173, how might history instead be interpreted??

[bob bobato]

Let's say there were an alternate universe which exactly mirrored our own, with the exception that their calendar began 163 years before ours (an arbitrary date). In this alternate Universe, we in 2010 are in the year 2173, 1950 was 2113, WWII was in the years 2102-2108, WWI 2077-2081, 1900 was 2063, and 2100 was 1937. How might History be differently interpreted under this new calendar?
(Interpreting history through calendar dates is not a good idea, of course, but nevertheless it is done. It is often said that the 20th century really began with WWI and some historians speak of long or short eighteenth centuries).

 

[Ajidica]

Huh? History would be interpreted exactly the same as it is now. We just like attaching events to big numbers even if it means nothing.

 

[SG-17]

We'd be celebrating the 12th anniversary of the founding of the United Federation of Planets.

 

[bob bobato]

Huh? History would be interpreted exactly the same as it is now. We just like attaching events to big numbers even if it means nothing.

Of course, that's exactly what I'm asking - how would events be attached to big numbers if the big numbers changed? You can't say WWI began a century if it began 23 years before the end of one, and generalizations about the 1800s or 1900s won't be made if those centuries don't exist. So, what generalizations would be made about the new centuries?

 

[Ajidica]

Then we say it ended an era. I think that is generaly considered a more apt definition of WWI than any other. WWI basicaly ended the idea of the 'Concert of Europe' and it really poisioned the idea of Nationalism and lead to a very uncertain time. Thats evidenced in philosophy with Phenomenology and the belief that each person has their own perception of everything.

We would then say WWII began an era, which is basicaly did. The era of true Globalisation.

 

[Dachs]

Forget 2173. It's Year 2321 using the real calendar.

 

[Silurian]

No its 7518 or maybe 2002

 

[Brian Shanahan]

1984 would have been titled either 2147 or "The last Man in Europe" (original working title). That's the only difference. Now if the number added on was 753 then it would be a different story.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, any reputable historian would talk more of eras than centuries anyway. Sometimes they line up nicely, but they don't have to.

 

[LightSpectra]

Then I'd be complaining about counter-factuals since 2172, I guess.

 

[Imrahil91]

People probably wouldn't be so afraid of the Y2K problem, since there were no computers back then. I guess that's about it?

 

[Arwon]

The revolutions of 1848 would have occurred near the beginning of a century, while the French Revolution would have been mid-century. I can see our understanding of the 19th century being different to what it is, with the first and second halves forming different units.

 

[bob bobato]

The revolutions of 1848 would have occurred near the beginning of a century, while the French Revolution would have been mid-century. I can see our understanding of the 19th century being different to what it is, with the first and second halves forming different units.

Queen Victoria would also have been crowned within a year or two of the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, and WWII would have begun just after the end of the it. I suppose the century would have been called the 'Victorian Century', that ended in a very chaotic period after WWI.

 

[Earthling]

It should clearly be the year 41.

The last few responses I think hit the nail on the thread - we just wouldn't view the same "centuries" as the same.

But a more interesting question, is whether the differences in numbers would have had actual effects on world events. For instance, the 1937 = 2100 seems rather huge, if that had been the calendar everyone had been using, the numerological impact of the "turn of the century" then could have resulted in different beliefs and actions by people leading into World War II.

 

[Karalysia]

2010 CE is:

Year 1431 in the Islamic calender
Year 5111 in the Kaliyuga calendar;
Year 2554 in the Buddha Nirvana calendar;
Year 2543 in the Buddhist Era (BE) of the Thai solar calendar
Year 2067 in the Bikram Samvat calendar;
Year 1932 in the Saka calendar;
Year 1931 of the Vedanga Jyotisa calendar;
Year 1417 in the Bengali calendar;
Year 524 in the Gaurabda Gaudiya calendar;
Year 1186 in the Kolla Varsham calendar.

So you can ask any Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.

 

[Traitorfish]

2010 CE is:

Year 1431 in the Islamic calender
Year 5111 in the Kaliyuga calendar;
Year 2554 in the Buddha Nirvana calendar;
Year 2543 in the Buddhist Era (BE) of the Thai solar calendar
Year 2067 in the Bikram Samvat calendar;
Year 1932 in the Saka calendar;
Year 1931 of the Vedanga Jyotisa calendar;
Year 1417 in the Bengali calendar;
Year 524 in the Gaurabda Gaudiya calendar;
Year 1186 in the Kolla Varsham calendar.

So you can ask any Muslim, Hindu, or Buddhist.

Although Jews may have a trickier time of it.

(It is, for the record, 5770 in the Hebrew Calendar, as well as 218 in the French Revolutionary Calendar.)

Queen Victoria would also have been crowned within a year or two of the beginning of the Twenty-First Century, and WWII would have begun just after the end of the it. I suppose the century would have been called the 'Victorian Century', that ended in a very chaotic period after WWI.

Why would we? We don't call the 19th century that, and she dominates it in a similarly neat fashion (reigned 1837-1901).

 

[ParkCungHee]

It is a period that has been called "The victorian Era" even when not applied to Britain.

 

[Traitorfish]

It is a period that has been called "The victorian Era" even when not applied to Britain.

I've never heard the term used as a direct synonym of "Nineteenth century", though. The Napoleonic Wars took place in the 19th century, after all, and are most certainly pre-Victorian, while the popular image of the era tends to spill over into the Edwardian era, only being definitively concluded with the outbreak of the First World War.

 

[ParkCungHee]

while the popular image of the era tends to spill over into the Edwardian era, only being definitively concluded with the outbreak of the First World War.

Not really. Either because of her death, or because it's 1900 (almost), most people tend to view that point as when 'the drift to WWI' starts, with everything before that being a prelude. I think views on the war might have changed perhaps in a less determinist direction, had the years been more akwardly numbered.

 

[Tee Kay]

Year 2543 in the Buddhist Era (BE) of the Thai solar calendar

It's 2553.