why wasn't the year 2000 considered the 20th century?

Answer 1

Everyone answering is missing the point here!

The answerers are correct that 2001 is actually the beginning of the 21st century .... however, please look at the question ....

The questioner asks why 2000 isn't considered as being part of the 20th century, rather than the 21st century, which it is now generally considered to be.

According to the other answers, which are correct, the year 2000 should be considered to be in the 20th century, and 2001 starting the new, 21st century.

This debate was held a lot at the turn of the century, but, IMO, the media turned the tide more than anything in celebrating the 21st century a year earlier than it should have been.

If anyone has clear, concise, and documented reasoning beyond the media hype and press why things were this way, I would love to hear it!

Answer 2

The year 2000 was the last year of the 20th Century, and also the last year of the Second Millenium. All the arguments a few years back about whether or not January 1, 2000, was the beginning of the new millenium were completely pointless. It's not a matter of belief but of simple arithmetic.

The first year of the Christian calendar was 1 A.D. (Anno Domini, or Year of our Lord). The First Millenium lasted from the beginning of the year 1 A.D. to the end of the year 1000 A.D., i.e., one thousand years. Therefore the Second Millenium lasted from the beginning of the year 1001 A.D. to the end of the year 2000 A.D, i.e., December 31, 2000. So the 21st Century, and the Third Millenium, began on January 1, 2001.

The monk, Dionysius Exiguus, who is mentioned by several of the answerers, did not "forget" or "neglect" to start with the year zero. He did not do so for the simple reason that there cannot be a year zero. Zero is simply the dividing point between the periods we know as A.D. and B.C., just as zero is the dividing point between negative numbers and positive numbers. Just as there cannot be a "negative zero" or a "positive zero" so there cannot be a 0 B.C. or a 0 A.D. There can be a first year, or a second year, or a hundredth year, but there cannot be a "zeroth" year. That is meaningless.

Answer 3

Nicolas S is right, because the calandar was calculated in Roman Numerals, which doesn't have a zero. The zero was the invention of Arab mathmaticians a few centuries after the Gregorian calandar went into use. "Zero" is an Arabic word.

Without a year zero, the first century was years 1-100, and the 20th century was the years 1901-2000.

During 1999, I tried to explain this stuf to people, not many would listen. The news media kept saying over and over that the century was ending. When nonsense is repeated enough times, people believe it without thinking.

Answer 4

In a nutshell, because the Roman catholic monk who devised our presently in use Christian calendar neglected to start the first century from zero and started it from one. In other words, the second century ought to start at the year 101 and not at the year 100 which, it actually concludes the century instead stating it. Consequently. the year 2000 concluded the 20th century and the year 2001 started the 21st century. For more historical details go to Yahoo search and type Gregorian calendar. And don't try to make sense out of it because you will get more confused than you are now. But don't feel bad about it, you are not alone in this crazy world of ours.

Answer 5

Think about it . . .

100 years per century
Think of it in 10ths - 10=10. 11 is the start of the next.
20 is the end of the 2nd. 21 is the start of the 3rd.
2000 is the end of the 20th. 2001 is the start of the 21st.

Answer 6

Nikolas S gave you the correct answer. The monk blew it and forgot to start with year zero so everything is off by one year. Way to go Nikolas.

Answer 7

year 0000- 1000 was first century, etc.