"By the 1st century B.C.E., the Roman calendar had become hopelessly confused."
At least one can treat the years in that period as numbers. For why Roman years before 300 B.C.E. have to be handled as names, not numbers, and should never be used in arithmetic operations, see Peter Paul Koch's excellent essay "Making <time> safe for historians": http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/04/making_time_...
I’m not familiar with WebExhibits, but that article is barely readable, a collection of copy-paste that have little overall consistency: the number of days and names of months is repeated for no apparent reasons; changes are not summarised. I don't think anyone can make sense of the examples, and references to those are not clear either.
Traditionalist Catholic religious communities still use this calendar to a certain extent.
At the beginning of dinner, the seminarians will assemble in the refectory and listen to the daily reading of the Roman Martyrology. It begins, for example, with "A reading from the Roman Martyrology for the fifth day before the Kalends of February, the thirteenth moon." Thereupon, we would hear about the saints whose feast days were established for the following day. The reading would end with the words "and elsewhere, many other holy martyrs, saints, and holy virgins."
The oddest day in the calendar was the dies bisextus, which gets inserted somewhere after the Nones of February in leap years. On that day, the reading is simply "Many holy martyrs, saints, and holy virgins."
To this day, indult parishes that celebrate the 1962 Roman liturgy have saints days that get moved apparently arbitrarily in late February on leap years. If you understand the old Roman calendar, it makes sense.
Death Throes of the Roman Republic (Which is now in their paid archive) is an excellent guide to the time of Caesar. About 11 minutes into to episode 1, most people buy into listening to the whole thing:
I'm sad they're not free anymore, but I remember the drive back from the trip while I listened to them better than most of the trip years later. It starts a good bit before Caesar.
The details about how the country transformed due to different stresses is fascinating, and the commentary on Caesars actions and his writings is particularly memorable.
Rome is fantastic. I loved that Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus are actually mentioned in Caesar's Commentary on the Gallic Wars (obviously very fictionalized in the show)
At least one can treat the years in that period as numbers. For why Roman years before 300 B.C.E. have to be handled as names, not numbers, and should never be used in arithmetic operations, see Peter Paul Koch's excellent essay "Making <time> safe for historians": http://www.quirksmode.org/blog/archives/2009/04/making_time_...