ThePortForum.com

My theory was the start and end of the 1st French Republic but can't see the link of drinking port to commemorate the end. Probably not my go either.

JWEW wrote:My theory was the start and end of the 1st French Republic but can't see the link of drinking port to commemorate the end. Probably not my go either.

I just checked and it isn't.

I should say that the link to port for the second date is less obvious / more tenuous than the link to champagne for the first. We have established that it simply connotes place in each case and that I don't think of port as exclusively a Portuguese invention.

djewesbury wrote:When I said you won't find what the date signifies by googling it, I meant that whatever it is will not be connected with this date. What was the theme of the first date? And what could be reasonably supposed, therefore, to link it with the second? Maybe working on part three will lead you to part two.

I had got this far, but found nothing while searching for relevant birth/marriage/death of Lous XVI or Marie Antoinette; on a wider search, 10th Feb was the day Pushkin died; I have no idea of a link between the two aside from "both death dates" and "both historical figures". Regarding the Champagne, Port and AHB connection my only thought was Alex's Quinquagenary which contained both, so the other alternative was an anniversary.

I think napoleonic troops occupied Portugal in the early 19th century. Is there a connection to this? Champagne for the start of the occupation and port for the end?

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:When I said you won't find what the date signifies by googling it, I meant that whatever it is will not be connected with this date. What was the theme of the first date? And what could be reasonably supposed, therefore, to link it with the second? Maybe working on part three will lead you to part two.

I had got this far, but found nothing while searching for relevant birth/marriage/death of Lous XVI or Marie Antoinette; on a wider search, 10th Feb was the day Pushkin died; I have no idea of a link between the two aside from "both death dates" and "both historical figures". Regarding the Champagne, Port and AHB connection my only thought was Alex's Quinquagenary which contained both, so the other alternative was an anniversary.

These are all interesting but quite beside the point.
What happened to Louis XVI on the first date?
Which '48/'49 might be relevant to the second date?
Why might it be impossible to search for this event in an 'On This Day' type of website?
Can you really not remember anything at all that you have learned about AHB, indeed you have learned it here in this very thread?
As I pointed out the clue about AHB would only help you solve the first date and that has been solved now.
A clue, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the main quiz, but which might point you in the right direction: on what date did the Battle of the Boyne take place?

AW77 wrote:I think napoleonic troops occupied Portugal in the early 19th century. Is there a connection to this? Champagne for the start of the occupation and port for the end?

Nope.

djewesbury wrote:These are all interesting but quite beside the point.
What happened to Louis XVI on the first date?
Which '48/'49 might be relevant to the second date?
Why might it be impossible to search for this event in an 'On This Day' type of website?
Can you really not remember anything at all that you have learned about AHB, indeed you have learned it here in this very thread?
As I pointed out the clue about AHB would only help you solve the first date and that has been solved now.
A clue, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the main quiz, but which might point you in the right direction: on what date did the Battle of the Boyne take place?

Oh well; I can see this is going to be painful
I never expected (no-one expects...) - is it the Spanish Inquisition?

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:These are all interesting but quite beside the point.
What happened to Louis XVI on the first date?
Which '48/'49 might be relevant to the second date?
Why might it be impossible to search for this event in an 'On This Day' type of website?
Can you really not remember anything at all that you have learned about AHB, indeed you have learned it here in this very thread?
As I pointed out the clue about AHB would only help you solve the first date and that has been solved now.
A clue, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the main quiz, but which might point you in the right direction: on what date did the Battle of the Boyne take place?

Oh well; I can see this is going to be painful
I never expected (no-one expects...) - is it the Spanish Inquisition?

NO!!!
Really - answer the simple question, designed to put you on the right track - what date did the Battle of the Boyne (aka the Twelfth of July) really take place on????
What could the connection be between event one (execution of Louis XVI) and event two???

djewesbury wrote:What happened to Louis XVI on the first date?

He died, due to his head not being connected to his body.

djewesbury wrote:Which '48/'49 might be relevant to the second date?

No idea, except for previous guesses (approx. 65 year if 19xx, so birthday/retirement already suggested).

djewesbury wrote:Why might it be impossible to search for this event in an 'On This Day' type of website?

Because it relates to a family member rather than a celebrity or historical figure, or because the event was not especially significant (assuming the former).

djewesbury wrote:Can you really not remember anything at all that you have learned about AHB, indeed you have learned it here in this very thread?

Yes, he owns a mine in New Mexico. No, I'm not re-reading the entire thread! Perhaps he is distantly related to one of the people who form part of the answer?

djewesbury wrote:As I pointed out the clue about AHB would only help you solve the first date and that has been solved now.

... to Louis XVI

djewesbury wrote:A clue, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the main quiz, but which might point you in the right direction: on what date did the Battle of the Boyne take place?

1st July 1690.
Please, sir, can I have some water?

djewesbury wrote:

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:These are all interesting but quite beside the point.
What happened to Louis XVI on the first date?
Which '48/'49 might be relevant to the second date?
Why might it be impossible to search for this event in an 'On This Day' type of website?
Can you really not remember anything at all that you have learned about AHB, indeed you have learned it here in this very thread?
As I pointed out the clue about AHB would only help you solve the first date and that has been solved now.
A clue, that doesn't have any direct bearing on the main quiz, but which might point you in the right direction: on what date did the Battle of the Boyne take place?

Oh well; I can see this is going to be painful
I never expected (no-one expects...) - is it the Spanish Inquisition?

NO!!!

Well, I thought it was amusing anyway :p

djewesbury wrote:Really - answer the simple question, designed to put you on the right track - what date did the Battle of the Boyne (aka the Twelfth of July) really take place on????

12th of July? What kind of funny new-fangled calendar are you using! See previous answer (and yes, I got the "potential offset between Gregorian vs JDAW Julian calendars" hint).

At last some proper answers. Go and lie down while I explain as I can tell nobody is going to get there.

The final clue, which was meant to enlighten you, has been answered correctly by Phil without any light apparently having been shed. The Battle of the Boyne did indeed take place on the 1st of July 1690; and yet it is commemorated on the 12th of July, as Phil has said, because of the shift in dates occasioned by the UK having subsequently adopted the Gregorian calendar.

So, the 10th of February is a date in the Gregorian calendar. But wait.. we've already established that the date might not be readily lookupable (Derek, if you report me to Apostrophe Crimes, I will never allow you to eat pork pie again) - not because it's a private occasion.. but because.. the date has changed because of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar.



So. What date might link to the years '48/'49, in any century, but presumably in the 18th or earlier, since it isn't a date in the Gregorian calendar, and might also be connected somehow to the execution of King Louis XVI?

What other country has a connection with Port other than Portugal?

What, off the top of your heads, might be the answer???

djewesbury wrote:So, the 10th of February is a date in the Gregorian calendar. But wait.. we've already established that the date might not be readily lookupable (Derek, if you report me to Apostrophe Crimes, I will never allow you to eat pork pie again) - not because it's a private occasion.. but because.. the date has changed because of the adoption of the Gregorian calendar.

Yep, I got that bit; and discovered that Guy Fawkes was executed on 31st Jan, for example - though I hadn't checked if I'd corrected the date in the right direction... but hadn't got further in connecting port, or '48/'49, yet.

30th January 1648.
In 1752, the calendar changed, from Julian to Gregorian.
In that year, the start of the year also changed: until 1752, the year began on Lady Day - the 25th March. That was New Year's Day.
The change to the Gregorian calendar meant also that New Year's Day was moved to the 1st of January.
Under the 'New Style' date, Charles was executed in 1649; and that is how it is recorded today. But at the time, it was 1648.
30 Jan 1648 (Old Style) = 10 Feb 1649 (New Style).
Champagne for a French king, Port for an English.
Simples.
I resign.

JWEW's turn, as he guessed the first bit correctly.

djewesbury wrote:Champagne for a French king, Port for an English.
Simples.
I resign.

Can we set some fireworks off?

Only if they're not Chinese.

djewesbury wrote:Only if they're not Chinese.

Because for that we have to wait for Feb 19th? Or can we do it 11 days earlier due to the UK calendar change, or 10days earlier for the French, or... nope, 12 days for the Chinese it seems... right, Feb 7th it is! Ah, no, bugger, it's related to lunar/solar cycles, ah well I have to wait.

:exhausted, older than I look, can't go on emoticon:

I must say Phil, I thought that a man with a logical brain and insight like yours would have got this tremendously simple quiz.

djewesbury wrote:JWEW's turn, as he guessed the first bit correctly.

Oh dear, I'll retire and attempt to think of a suitable question. If anyone else can think of one then please feel free to usurp me.

On interesting thing I have learned from this question is that not all countries switch from Julian to Gregorian at the same time. A consequence of this is that different countries "lost" different numbers of days when switching due to the drift between the calendar methods for determining leap years.

In 1582 the calendars were defined to have a 10 day difference; this continued until 1700 when it increased to 11 days. Much of Europe changed from Julian to Gergorian in the period 1580-1610 (10 days skipped), but the UK only changed in 1752 (11 days shift); I can only imagine the dates between countries must have been confusing for that 150years.

djewesbury wrote:30 Jan 1648 (Old Style) = 10 Feb 1649 (New Style).

I think the above means that at the 1648/1649 year change there was only a difference of 10 rather than 11 days; this would mean that 30 Jan 1648 (Old Style) = 9 Feb 1649 (New Style), which would mean you can drink your port a day earlier - hurrah!

PhilW wrote:On interesting thing I have learned from this question is that not all countries switch from Julian to Gregorian at the same time. A consequence of this is that different countries "lost" different numbers of days when switching due to the drift between the calendar methods for determining leap years.

In 1582 the calendars were defined to have a 10 day difference; this continued until 1700 when it increased to 11 days. Much of Europe changed from Julian to Gergorian in the period 1580-1610 (10 days skipped), but the UK only changed in 1752 (11 days shift); I can only imagine the dates between countries must have been confusing for that 150years.

djewesbury wrote:30 Jan 1648 (Old Style) = 10 Feb 1649 (New Style).

I think the above means that at the 1648/1649 year change there was only a difference of 10 rather than 11 days; this would mean that 30 Jan 1648 (Old Style) = 9 Feb 1649 (New Style), which would mean you can drink your port a day earlier - hurrah!

Good lord, you're right! Huzzah. And Rachel's January abstemiousness will be a distant and unpleasant memory by then.
The other interesting thing about this is that when King Billy sailed from the Low Countries to Britain in 1688, he arrived before he left; at least, calendrically.

Have I yet grouched about the Gregorian calendar?

The Julian calendar started in 46 B.C.E. Later Pope Gregory corrected the error in the Julian accumulated since the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., rather than since the original Julian proclamation. During those 3.7 centuries the Julian calendar had, rounded, another 3 days of error. So the calendar is still three days wrong.

My campaign to correct this error has not yet quite reached critical mass.

This might be even tougher than the big-bottle campaign.

What would we call this new calendar? The Superjulian? The New Julian?

jdaw1 wrote:The Julian calendar started in 46 B.C.E. Later Pope Gregory corrected the error in the Julian accumulated since the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., rather than since the original Julian proclamation. During those 3.7 centuries the Julian calendar had, rounded, another 3 days of error. So the calendar is still three days wrong.

While it is true that there is a three day discrepancy between the Julian and Gregorian calendars in the period 46 BCE to 325CE, there is no clear reason why 46BCE should be considered the origin for both calendars (i.e. that they must be in alignment at that time). I get the impression that the alignment point of the Council of Nicea was selected since that was the date when the method for calculation of the date of Easter was changed, and presumably pulled the date for Easter back to what was considered the acceptable range, having drifted too later in the year by the 1500s. If selecting an arbitrary alignment date, 0BCE/CE would have seemed like a simple choice, but any date will serve providing it is clearly defined. I think you're on a loser on this one!

Or are you saying that Constantine was wrong?

There was no "0 BCE/CE".

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You and Pol Pot. The French were far more sensible. 1792 became Year I of the French Republic.

djewesbury wrote:What would we call this new calendar? The Superjulian? The New Julian?

Duh. The JDAW.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You're poking me on purpose, aren't you? Both of you!

We cannot let Prince win. There was no reason to party like it was 1999, as neither the 2nd millennium nor the 20th century was going to end for another year.

Glenn E. wrote:

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

You're poking me on purpose, aren't you? Both of you!

We cannot let Prince win. There was no reason to party like it was 1999, as the 2nd millennium wasn't going to end for another year.

Glenn, I'm with you on this one! In fact the only numerical denier that I can recall here is Rob (RAYC)!

PhilW wrote:there is no clear reason why 46BCE should be considered the origin for both calendars

Because that that is when the Julian calendar was correctly aligned, by design. Caesar did not choose the start and drift such that it would be correct when a few bishops partied in Turkey.

PhilW wrote:I get the impression that the alignment point of the Council of Nicea was selected since that was the date when the method for calculation of the date of Easter was changed

So the calendar is wrong and Easter might be correct. Whoopee do.

PhilW wrote:If selecting an arbitrary alignment date, 0BCE/CE would

I seeded that error. You missed the seed and planted your own tree.

PhilW wrote:I think you're on a loser on this one!

Oh. That’s such a disappointment.

I don't understand; why do you think Caesar's arbitrary date is less arbitrary than the Council of Nicaea?

Possibility 1. Caesar choose the date knowing that 3.7 centuries later the clock would be right.

Possibility 2. Caesar choose the date because it was then correct.

Possibility 3. Caesar was wrong, but Zaphod’s party date just happened to land on the right day.

Which is most likely?

Do you care?

djewesbury wrote:Do you care?

Yes. My phone is three days wrong. As is yours.

Not any more. To me, from now on, I'm on JDAW. It's the 18th of January. Do we want to recalibrate the year? I think we should call it 1 JW. Could you re-date all the threads in Organising Tastings and Reviews?

Sigh. With supporters like these, who needs opponents. Gregory did not change the year — that would have been confusing — he shifted the calendar by a few days. I am not proposing changing the year, which is hallowed by antiquity.

jdaw1 wrote:Sigh. With supporters like these, who needs opponents. Gregory did not change the year — that would have been confusing — he shifted the calendar by a few days. I am not proposing changing the year, which is hallowed by antiquity.

But I insist. It's the least we can do to honour you. L'an 1 de JDAW. Ça marche, non?

Do we need a vote on this????

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

Who's question is it? Perhaps a new question would reconcile people again.

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

What shall I do with all these campaign posters, with Julian's avatar on them?

djewesbury wrote:

DRT wrote:

djewesbury wrote:Do we need a vote on this????

No.

What shall I do with all these campaign posters, with Julian's avatar on them?

Follow Pol Pot's lead and burn them.

Sorry Julian, it feels like desecration. It was a beautiful, crazy dream while it lasted. But it's over now. Please, don't write that letter to the Astronomer Royal, don't bother hitting 'send' on that email to Professor Brian Cox, call back the tide, snuff the candles. Our three days are gone forever.
(Incidentally, the reports that there were riots around the chant of 'give us back our eleven days' when the Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752 are unfortunately untrue; but the unrest in Streatham tonight might stretch the constabulary.)

djewesbury wrote:write that letter to the Astronomer Royal

I hadn’t thought of that.

PhilW wrote:

djewesbury wrote:There was no "0 BCE/CE".

True, I should have said 1BCE/CE; though the lack of a zero always rankles for me.

Having thought about this further, I retract my correction. On the basis that both measurements (CE) are linear and do not have to be positive (if disagreeing please demonstrate where positive values only are mandated), therefore the sequence when counting backwards in CE would be 5CE, 4CE, 3CE, 2CE, 1CE, 0CE, -1CE -2CE etc. Similarly counting forwards (in time) for BCE would be 3BCE, 2BCE, 1BCE, 0BCE, -1BCE etc. On that basis "0 BCE/CE" has exactly the same meaning as "1 CE/BCE" and therefore refers to the same boundary under discussion. I'm keeping the zero!

So you're maintaining that there is one year with two names? But counting backwards, the one year with two names would be a different year. Isn't this ugly, inconsistent and unusable?