Why does Firaxis still use BC and AD?

[Patine]

Well now, instead of crediting the Christians for giving the world an extremely useful dating system let's downplay and discredit their contribution for the sake of political correctness. Perhaps you would like to rewrite the moral code that many countries based their legal system on because it was influenced by the Judaeo-Christian world view as well.

Astronomers under Julius Gaius Caesar created the current calendar (although it was recalibrated slightly on order of Pope Gregory VII), including the months and the length of the year and the year changing shortly after the Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstace. The Christian Church just changed the pegging point the years are numbered from.

 

[Perseus Gold]

@Kyro European civilization has thrived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christians who think the opposite have a vision of Christianity that is Enlightenment era revisionist Christianity that barely resembles the Christianity of the earlier eras of it's history. Even before the Reformation as most people are aware of it Christianity underwent two other major revisions and another two reformations since the so named reformation. Not to mention the four major rewrites of the Torah from a polytheistic in the beginning, then henotheistic and finally monotheistic faith. But that's what you get when you study it objectively and we're not someone brought up indoctrinated into it.

 

[Kyro]

Astronomers under Julius Gaius Caesar created the current calendar (although it was recalibrated slightly on order of Pope Gregory VII), including the months and the length of the year and the year changing shortly after the Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstace. The Christian Church just changed the pegging point the years are numbered from.

That does nothing to change the fact that the changes made were more useful for dating than before as evidenced by the pragmatic adaptation of the Gregorian Calendar over the Julian Calendar by most of the world. Perhaps you would like to take into consideration why the Julian Calendar was changed in the first place. "Unchristening" the calendar is pointless because the dates are measured from distinctively christian events. To truly change it would mean to recreate new terminology and re-designate new events by which to date the calendar which messes up everything in record for nearly every country in the world.

It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed and died. What's wrong with dating events based on history?

@Kyro European civilization has thrived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christians who think the opposite have a vision of Christianity that is Enlightenment era revisionist Christianity that barely resembles the Christianity of the earlier eras of it's history. Even before the Reformation as most people are aware of it Christianity underwent two other major revisions and another two reformations since the so named reformation. Not to mention the four major rewrites of the Torah from a polytheistic in the beginning, then henotheistic and finally monotheistic faith. But that's what you get when you study it objectively and we're not someone brought up indoctrinated into it.

It is funny how people who live in a society whose laws are built on the Judeo-Christian worldview are so quick to deny credit for that which allowed their civilization to thrive in the first place. Christianity had a hard time spreading to the Germanic tribes. You want to know why? They couldn't understand why it was wrong to kill the weak for their benefit. Thriving in spite of....yeah...if you meant it in terms of survival of the strongest. Where do you think the concept of Human Rights came from? But enough about that we dive too far into religion. If you wish to continue it can be done privately.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

It's there to maintain a comparison to our timeline.

This ! It's much more satisfying to get a space victory in the seventeenth century than on turn 2xx.

@Kyro European civilization has thrived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christians who think the opposite have a vision of Christianity that is Enlightenment era revisionist Christianity that barely resembles the Christianity of the earlier eras of it's history.

Debatable.
I don't hold a high opinion of Christianity or monotheism in general, but the faith was a unifying force in a time of turmoil, and the church was the only institution dedicated to the preserve knowledge.
Christianity has a lot of flaws, but it didn't cause Europe to fall too far behind compared to other regions in the grand scheme of things. China almost got an industrial revolution during the Song dynasty, but they missed their chance in part due to the inherent flaws of Confucianism.

 

[Patine]

That does nothing to change the fact that the changes made were more useful for dating than before as evidenced by the pragmatic adaptation of the Gregorian Calendar over the Julian Calendar by most of the world. Perhaps you would like to take into consideration why the Julian Calendar was changed in the first place. "Unchristening" the calendar is pointless because the dates are measured from distinctively christian events. To truly change it would mean to recreate new terminology and re-designate new events by which to date the calendar which messes up everything in record for nearly every country in the world.

It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed and died. What's wrong with dating events based on history?



It is funny how people who live in a society whose laws are built on the Judeo-Christian worldview are so quick to deny credit for that which allowed their civilization to thrive in the first place. Christianity had a hard time spreading to the Germanic tribes. You want to know why? They couldn't understand why it was wrong to kill the weak for their benefit. Thriving in spite of....yeah...if you meant it in terms of survival of the strongest. Where do you think the concept of Human Rights came from? But enough about that we dive too far into religion. If you wish to continue it can be done privately.

This ! It's much more satisfying to get a space victory in the seventeenth century than on turn 2xx.



Debatable.
I don't hold a high opinion of Christianity or monotheism in general, but the faith was a unifying force in a time of turmoil, and the church was the only institution dedicated to the preserve knowledge.
Christianity has a lot of flaws, but it didn't cause Europe to fall too far behind compared to other regions in the grand scheme of things. China almost got an industrial revolution during the Song dynasty, but they missed their chance in part due to the inherent flaws of Confucianism.

Actually, I do hold a VERY opinion of Christianity, and actually hold it as my personal faith. But I've been very distraught at the HUGE number of people in the world who claim to be Christians (probably a majority) who are in fact anything but - who have, using only the name of Christ (in vane) and the symbols and scriptures of Christianity, have created a cult of greed, war, vindictive judgement, hard-heartedness, hate, pride, nationalist and racism division, and promotion of elitism mixed with an unholy syncretic mess with inappropriate and jarring Gnostic and Manichaeistic (inappropriate and jarring as in they don't belong mixed). And this monstrous cult is a very large part of the laws and influence on most nations you speak of - as Christ, in his ministry, never spoke of theocratic legislation or political power by the Church; he was dismissive of government and wealth the few times he spoke of them. Also, for a proper Christian calendar that is spoken of, 1 AD would have to be pushed back to 3 BC in any case, and still screw up records.

 

[teks]

@Kyro European civilization has thrived in spite of Christianity, not because of it. Christians who think the opposite have a vision of Christianity that is Enlightenment era revisionist Christianity that barely resembles the Christianity of the earlier eras of it's history. Even before the Reformation as most people are aware of it Christianity underwent two other major revisions and another two reformations since the so named reformation. Not to mention the four major rewrites of the Torah from a polytheistic in the beginning, then henotheistic and finally monotheistic faith. But that's what you get when you study it objectively and we're not someone brought up indoctrinated into it.

But the dark ages prior to the renaissance was closely tied to the fall kf the Roman (Byzantine Empire) and the renaissance itself was nothing more then the revival of late Roman (Byzantine) culture and law. All of which was created by a Christian state. A christian state so advanced that we still use its standard of law today.

Far from in spite of christianity, it was the downfall of Christianity through serveral Schisms which halted the advancement of civilization until the renaissance. This ability for christianity to adapt and change with a diverse state was lost when the Ottoman Empire destroyed the Roman Empire. They destroyed the state and left the church, as such the church lost much of its ability to adapt, but retained most its more ridged aspects.

Actually, I do hold a VERY opinion of Christianity, and actually hold it as my personal faith. But I've been very distraught at the HUGE number of people in the world who claim to be Christians (probably a majority) who are in fact anything but - who have, using only the name of Christ (in vane) and the symbols and scriptures of Christianity, have created a cult of greed, war, vindictive judgement, hard-heartedness, hate, pride, nationalist and racism division, and promotion of elitism mixed with an unholy syncretic mess with inappropriate and jarring Gnostic and Manichaeistic (inappropriate and jarring as in they don't belong mixed). And this monstrous cult is a very large part of the laws and influence on most nations you speak of - as Christ, in his ministry, never spoke of theocratic legislation or political power by the Church; he was dismissive of government and wealth the few times he spoke of them. Also, for a proper Christian calendar that is spoken of, 1 AD would have to be pushed back to 3 BC in any case, and still screw up records.

Amen to that man. My Orthodox church still takes in Lebanese and Syrian refugees. The patriarch of Constantinople preaches for Green reform. And we were taught that we, Muslims, and Hebrews are all the same. So sad the lack of empathy and the ignorance. So many people have taken the title of 'christian' yet lack anything in common with the religion. They take the name only to poach followers and poison the well.

 

[Perseus Gold]

This ! It's much more satisfying to get a space victory in the seventeenth century than on turn 2xx.



Debatable.
I don't hold a high opinion of Christianity or monotheism in general, but the faith was a unifying force in a time of turmoil, and the church was the only institution dedicated to the preserve knowledge.
Christianity has a lot of flaws, but it didn't cause Europe to fall too far behind compared to other regions in the grand scheme of things. China almost got an industrial revolution during the Song dynasty, but they missed their chance in part due to the inherent flaws of Confucianism.

It was dedicated to preservation of knowledge because it was trying to control it, from the 4th through 6th centuries it was Christian mobs that destroyed the majority of libraries built throughout antiquity.

 

[Perseus Gold]

That does nothing to change the fact that the changes made were more useful for dating than before as evidenced by the pragmatic adaptation of the Gregorian Calendar over the Julian Calendar by most of the world. Perhaps you would like to take into consideration why the Julian Calendar was changed in the first place. "Unchristening" the calendar is pointless because the dates are measured from distinctively christian events. To truly change it would mean to recreate new terminology and re-designate new events by which to date the calendar which messes up everything in record for nearly every country in the world.

It is a historical fact that Jesus Christ of Nazareth existed and died. What's wrong with dating events based on history?



It is funny how people who live in a society whose laws are built on the Judeo-Christian worldview are so quick to deny credit for that which allowed their civilization to thrive in the first place. Christianity had a hard time spreading to the Germanic tribes. You want to know why? They couldn't understand why it was wrong to kill the weak for their benefit. Thriving in spite of....yeah...if you meant it in terms of survival of the strongest. Where do you think the concept of Human Rights came from? But enough about that we dive too far into religion. If you wish to continue it can be done privately.

What you are saying of Christianity is true of the Christian revisionism of the Enlightenment era in which the leading philosophers of the day reinterpreted nearly everything about the faith and the modern conception of Christianity you have inherited is a product of those men, not the original version of the Faith.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

Maybe you should take that discussion to the Off Topic section of this forum. It's in need of fresh blood.
(Not literally, were not literally vampires over there.)

 

[evanaurora]

BCE/CE is the common terminology nowadays, and should be used. It looks a little outdated to use BC/AD. The REASON it's the common terminology seems clear to me-- it's a minor adjustment that hurts no one and makes the system a little more egalitarian-- what's the downside?

 

[liv]

BCE/CE is the common terminology nowadays, and should be used. It looks a little outdated to use BC/AD. The REASON it's the common terminology seems clear to me-- it's a minor adjustment that hurts no one and makes the system a little more egalitarian-- what's the downside?

Exactly

 

[Gorbles]

People saying there was a "political" correction from the Christian description are kinda missing the general point. Every correction of every calendar has been political

The motivation for the adjustment was to bring the date for the celebration of Easter to the time of year in which it was celebrated when it was introduced by the early Church.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregorian_calendar

I have no real preference, but I'm not going to get bent out of shape if Firaxis change it either. I loved the Mayan calendar in CiV.

 

[Janskey]

I'm a filthy atheist too, and I don't really care (not that all atheists are filthy, it's probably just me). Seems as logical as the next system, unlike inches, feet, and whatnot vs. the metric system. The BC/AD stuff is sometimes used even in highly respected scientific journals like Nature or Science, e.g. https://www.nature.com/articles/nplants2016194
I have noticed a general shift towards using the terms BCE/CE, though, but like I said, don't really care.

 

[Gabhar]

BC and AD are still typical colloquial usage, and it's such a minor thing it's really not worth getting worked up about.

 

[Art Morte]

Imagine Civ6 being at a state where stuff like this was worth debating about?

Take a seat and chill out, op.

 

[Human Crouton]

As a non-Christian myself, I’d have no problem if they used the full unabbreviated “Before Christ” and “Anno Domini.” The only reason the so-called “Current Era” has its epoch in 1 CE is because the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was calculated as around then, so why both mincing words. If it were really a concern the whole dating system would be altered.*

I agree. Either is fine with me, but I prefer BC because I'm used to it and I think it was pointless to change to the whole CE thing anyway since all it does change the labeling, but still leaves the birth of Christ in place as the divider.

 

[Imaus]

BCE/CE is the common terminology nowadays, and should be used. It looks a little outdated to use BC/AD. The REASON it's the common terminology seems clear to me-- it's a minor adjustment that hurts no one and makes the system a little more egalitarian-- what's the downside?

BCE and CE aren't seemingly common - though most people don't use AD out-right but they do tend to use BC. "In 1944 the first man-made object entered space, a V1 rocket.... In 9BC, Germans defeated the Romans in the ambush at that forest....'

And it doesn't make the system more egalitarian. What's so common about 1CE? Jack-all. Romans and Hans, maybe. In the end it's the Christian calendar. Changing it to 'common' makes no sense other to avoid saying AD/BC.

You want a egalitarian calendar, you use something like the Holocene. And even that is imperfect, it's an estimate. (So is AD/BC, apparently historicity puts the figure of Christ around 6 BC for a birth date due to the Census alluded to in the Bible).

There IS no perfect calendar that can fit a civ game, most of the world uses AD/BC due to European influence on the world, and overall there's no need to change it. I would support the Holocene Calendar if one could figure or whittle down the years of it to be more precise than adding 10,000 years to the AD/BC calendar for the game, though, out of some perfectionism.

 

[Patine]

I notice that Wikipedia has no firm rule on the issue, and a given article contributor (or editor) may use whichever terminology set they wish (and thus you see both sets of terms used, inconsistently and sporadically, throughout different contributors' articles).

 

[PhilBowles]

BC/AD are still the global conventions for the Christian calendar (personally, I object to the 'BCE' nonsense, but that's neither here nor there - it simply isn't widely adopted outside the US), so if they're going to use those calendar dates they should continue to use BC and AD.

The alternative of using different calendars for different civs is nice where that's available (I loved the Mayan calendar in Civ V, and for traditionally Islamic, Buddhist etc. areas and those whose calendar systems don't have a religious origin, I'd be happy to see those as options. Obviously we won't have calendar options for civs like the Scythians because we don't know what scheme they used or if they kept track at all.

Alternatively, a nice touch might be to have a set calendar that turns into a religion-appropriate one on adopting Islam, Buddhism etc., just as the Maya calendar began with researching Calendar in Civ V.

It is a bit silly how, in game, the Aztec measure time in relation to some middle eastern guy they've never heard of.

That issue remains as long as you use those dates whatever notation you use. That's why I object to the 'Common Era' convention - it elevates a historical oddity (that European states and their derivatives adopt a calendar based on the customary birth date for a specific historical figure) to a claim of universal importance (and somehow the world was not in a common era before that character's birth). The calendar's only common to states with a Christian history, so it's a meaningless appelation.

^ What he said. I'm an atheist and I find the whole "Common Era" thing to be a meaningless political correction of what is still innately a Christian dating system. No point calling a spade a blunt garden instrument and pretending it's not still a spade...

Exactly so. What's more the Common Era idea was dreamed up by Christians - I imagine ones who were well-meaning, but at least to me (also an atheist) it comes across to me as being more religiously loaded than the original roughly neutral descriptors of an event (although obviously Anno Domini is an archaism), as it contains the implicit suggestion that Christ's birth marked the start of a common era for mankind as a whole rather than just being a dating system linked to a character who people are free to believe in or not.

 

[Morningcalm]

BC/AD seems fine to me; easy to distinguish the two unlike BC/CE. No need to fix what isn't broken. No fuss no muss.

(I do enjoy reading the historical discussion, but I think this belongs more in Ideas/Suggestions than General Discussion TBH.)