![]() |
![]() |
Visit The *EVEN NEWER* Barrow-Downs Photo Page |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Emperor of the South Pole
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Western Shore of Lake Evendim
Posts: 646
![]() |
![]()
Makes sense to me. I was going from the memory of a slightly drunken and tired mind that did not consult either the Appendix or the Encyclopedia of Arda, so overliiked the two year "change" in the Third Age Reckoning. I would think that the year 3019 was longer, as it would have started per the reckoning of the preceding years. It was then "reset" as of March 25 and went to March 24 3020, so would have been technically, a year and three months long.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Loremaster of Annúminas
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,330
![]() ![]() ![]() |
A reflection of a Primary World problem familiar to genealogists and historians when dealing with dates in the Julian Calendar (which also began on 25 March). The usual modern convention is to modify them as needed to, e.g., 22 Feb. 1688/9.
__________________
The entire plot of The Lord of the Rings could be said to turn on what Sauron didn’t know, and when he didn’t know it. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Late Istar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,224
![]() ![]() |
Quote:
Actually, it seems to me that this means there is still a contradiction. Leaving aside Shire Reckoning, we then have T.A. 3021 = F.A. 1, with no overlap between F.A. 1 and T.A. 3022. Each T.A. year x from 3021 onward corresponds exactly to the F.A. year (x - 3020). But then we have these facts: - Eomer's death date is given as T.A. 3084 and F.A. 63. But T.A. 3084 should be F.A. 64. - Gimli's departure is given as T.A. 3141 and F.A. 120. But T.A. 3141 should be F.A. 121. The apparent discrepancies between S.R. and F.A. can still be explained away as in my first post, with events falling between Yule and March 25 or between March 25 and Yule as necessary. But if T.A. and F.A. years correspond exactly, then it fails for the two cases above. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 |
A Northern Soul
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Valinor
Posts: 1,847
![]() |
I wonder if that relates to my last point about the hobbits not observing the March 25 T.A. 3021 starting date for F.A. 1, instead using the start of their next new year.
The quote from Appendix D says they chose to acknowledge F.A. 1 as starting with S.R. 1422; do we also see that they continued to reckon years by midwinter even in their own conversions S.R. > T.A. before that? It seems so. In the final pages of Appendix B where events for 3020 and 3021 are given, there is a footnote that says months and days are given in the Shire calendar, but also Frodo's recurring illness on March 13 is listed at the starts of 3020 and 3021, squarely co-labeled S.R. 1420 and 1421. By New Reckoning, those dates should've been in the final days of 3019 and 3020. Are the T.A. years are recorded according to men, but the F.A. years given according to hobbit conversion instead (where S.R. 1422 = T.A. 3022 = F.A. 1)?
__________________
...take counsel with thyself, and remember who and what thou art. |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |