|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 17, 2005 9:31 pm
which are you more interested in B.C or A.D
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 18, 2005 3:22 am
A.D by miles... 3nodding B.C History is dull. Very dull.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 7:47 am
I agree, BC never really has been able to hold my interest for very long. I prefer AD, but I think many people would to so would it not be better to find exactly what AD time periods we have particular interest ... Hold on, isn't that another thread ... never mind my babbling. wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 23, 2005 6:02 pm
I prefer the late years of BCE up through about 1600 CE
*damn you and your political incorrectness8
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:37 am
Mmmm....BC. Pretty pretty BC. ~Glomps Egypt and Greece.~ Yummy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 5:12 pm
B.C (or BCE). So much of the good history happened then. The Greek city-states, Egypt, Alexander, and even the very beginnings of it all. It's my favorite and consequently much of my area of expertise. However, when talking about North America, I'm all for pre-European contact, so right up to the 16th century.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:08 pm
hey, I just realised something idea . AD means after death right? and it's refering to Jesus' death right? but doesn't AD start at his birth? I'm probably wrong though...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:16 pm
7Konig7 hey, I just realised something idea . AD means after death right? and it's refering to Jesus' death right? but doesn't AD start at his birth? I'm probably wrong though... Well, no. AD actually stands for "anno domini," which means "year of Our Lord" in Latin. Although lots of people think it stands for "after death." However, the calendar is a few years off.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 7:27 pm
Definitely AD. And recent AD too. Most of the stuff I like happened within the past two hundred years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 12:19 pm
For me (a new member, whoot), it depends. If you mean wars and literature, I'd have to say BCE, especially the more recent civilizations of Ancient Greece and Rome. I don't know why, but those two have always fascinated me...along with all of history, really. It makes you think, you know? What would have happened if this hadn't happened, or how advanced would we be if this happened here and not there?
However, if you mean technologically-wise, I would have to say from about 1700 AD on. I love to study the technology of the past three hundred years or so; it fascinates me how intelligent people can be, and how intuitive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:53 pm
deffinatly AD, never been a real fan of ancient history
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:39 pm
I find both BCE and CE to be interesting,m in different ways. COuldn't really choose one over the other 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:15 pm
Cassandra022 I find both BCE and CE to be interesting,m in different ways. COuldn't really choose one over the other 3nodding
However, I prefer CE a bit more, only because I really enjoy studying World War II and the Holocaust. Those subjects really fascinate me...Hitler had a really distorted mind, you know? He himself was half Jew and not blonde hair/blue eyed...and yet, that's what he wanted the world to be. What was he trying to do, become the only one that wasn't a clone?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:05 pm
Both.. each have their interesting points
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue May 24, 2005 7:49 pm
Ancient history all the way!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
