New Year's on a Different Date?

Beanntraigheach · 31-12-2016 9:59pm #1

A bit of a daft question perhaps

but I'll ask it anyway:

Would New Year's be all that big a deal if it weren't close to Christmas and so a part of the wider Christmas-New Year holiday?
i.e. if it were, say, the 1st of March, would it be a major occasion in the year marked by several days holiday from school/work etc, or would it be a relatively low-key affair, a bank holiday perhaps, nothing more?

Opinions?

Hector Bellend · 31-12-2016 10:00pm

Its all like calendars and sh1t

sideswipe · 31-12-2016 10:02pm

China says yes.

Hector Bellend · 31-12-2016 10:04pm

ulster says no

KERSPLAT! · 31-12-2016 10:13pm

Down with that sorta thing

Peregrine · 31-12-2016 10:14pm

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

if it were, say, the 1st of March

It was in the Roman calendar until 2000 years ago. At the time, their calendar had ten months from March to December. September, October, November, December — 7, 8, 9, 10. There was no Christmas back then (Christianity either didn't exist or its followers were persecuted at the time) and I'm fairly sure they celebrated New Year.

The_Valeyard · 31-12-2016 10:14pm

Careful now

judeboy101 · 31-12-2016 10:17pm

A billion Muslims and a billion chinamen would agree with you

osarusan · 31-12-2016 10:18pm

Any excuse for a piss-up.

But I would say yes, it would still be a big event, maybe even bigger than now as some people wouldn't be wrecked and broke from Christmas.

Pherekydes · 31-12-2016 10:28pm

Peregrine wrote: »

It was in the Roman calendar until 2000 years ago. At the time, their calendar had ten months from March to December. September, October, November, December — 7, 8, 9, 10. There was no Christmas back then (Christianity either didn't exist or its followers were persecuted at the time) and I'm fairly sure they celebrated New Year.

The two months the Romans added were July and August, in honour of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. Their year began on January first, as did ours. The location of the new year is linked to the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere.

Peregrine · 31-12-2016 10:34pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

The two months the Romans added were July and August, in honour of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. Their year began on January first, as did ours. The location of the new year is linked to the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere.

July and August were renamed from existing months — not added. January and February were added to a ten-month calendar. It may have been longer than 2000 years ago if July and August were renamed after that which could have only happened 2000 years ago.

Edit: https://www.timeanddate.com/calendar/roman-calendar.html

Collie D · 31-12-2016 10:38pm

Pherekydes wrote: »

The two months the Romans added were July and August, in honour of Julius Caesar and Augustus Caesar. Their year began on January first, as did ours. The location of the new year is linked to the winter solstice in the northern hemisphere.

January was named after the god of transition Janus who traditionally had two heads or faces - one looking back to the old year and the other forward to the next.

joeguevara · 31-12-2016 10:42pm

Thailands new year is in April...massive....a holiday is a holiday...eg. St Patrick's day

Ferrari3600 · 31-12-2016 10:48pm

AUGCEMEBER!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mmlx-e_u0i8

scamalert · 31-12-2016 10:53pm

osarusan wrote: »

Any excuse for a piss-up.

But I would say yes, it would still be a big event, maybe even bigger than now as some people wouldn't be wrecked and broke from Christmas.

those who go overhead on spending should be at their own fault,hand made present or good gesture is as good as expensive item,some people are just spoiled in this generation to go into debt when surely a bit more attention and love would achieve the same satisfaction.

That aside many countries Russian for one and many Asian countries celebrate at different dates which is usually few months past christian date,but that seems to make little impact here,but from what can be seen they put effort into celebrating like many other festivities thus really little difference when new years falls since they have their own traditions but more religious meaning to them then say western countries do.

LordSutch · 01-01-2017 12:08am

Beanntraigheach wrote: »

New Year's on a Different Date?

How about the 2nd of january

Marcusm · 04-01-2017 12:00am

Peregrine wrote: »

It was in the Roman calendar until 2000 years ago. At the time, their calendar had ten months from March to December. September, October, November, December — 7, 8, 9, 10. There was no Christmas back then (Christianity either didn't exist or its followers were persecuted at the time) and I'm fairly sure they celebrated New Year.

More relevant for us, new year began on 25th March in the realms of England until the mid 18th century. If seems odd to us now; until about 10 years ago, one relic of this was our tax year beginning on 6 April (which was 25 March plus the 11 days transit from Julian to Gregorian calendar). The UK still has 6 April as beginning of income tax year.

OwaynOTT · 04-01-2017 12:12am

Let's go back to a ten month calendar. Sure who likes March and April.

New Year's on a Different Date?

Comments