|  |  | 

History Quick History

Quick History: Leap Year

Happy Leap Year! Our modern day Gregorian calendar is far from perfect. None of the calendar systems in use perfectly reflect the length of a tropical year, which happens to be approximately 365.242189 days long on average. There are better calendars than the one currently in use, the Gregorian calendar, which inherited its name from Pope Gregory XIII, who introduced it in October 1582. Just for the record, here are some of the world’s calendars in order from most accurate to least accurate.

Calendar Introduced Average Year Length Approximate Error
Solar Hijri calendar 2nd millennium BCE 365.2421986 days < 1 sec/year (1 day in 110,000 years)
Revised Julian calendar 1923 CE 365.242222 days 2 sec/year (1 day in 31,250 years)
Mayan calendar ~2000 BCE 365.242036 days 13 sec/year (1 day in 6500 years)
Gregorian calendar 1582 CE 365.2425 days 27 sec/year (1 day in 3236 years)
Jewish calendar 9th century CE 365.246822 days 7 min/year (1 day in 216 years)
Julian calendar 45 BCE 365.25 days 11 min/year (1 day in 128 years)
365-day calendar (no leap years) 365 days 6 hours/year (1 day in 4 years)

It takes the Earth approximately 365.242189 days – or 365 days, 5 hours, 48 minutes, and 45 seconds – to complete a single circle around the sun. So, we need a calendar that can keep up the pace with the world it belongs to, or else everything might eventually fall behind. Sure, it takes some time before those days add up. But, one must realize that time adds up quickly.

The Gregorian calendar has 365 days in a year, so if we didn’t add a leap day on February 29 every four years, we would lose six hours off our calendar every year. See what I mean by time adding up quickly? After only a single century, the calendar most widely used would be off by twenty-four full days! How do we fix this? With a leap year, of course.

Without Leap Year...

There are some weird stipulations when it comes to how the Gregorian calendar is set up. For example, lets go back in time to the year 2000, a leap year. If 1800 and 1900 weren’t leap years, and 2100 and 2200 won’t be either, how was 2000 able to add an extra day onto the calendar in February that year? Since 1752, years exactly divisible by 100 are only considered leap years when they are also divisible by 400. Here’s a FAQ link for you, because I’m unable to explain it in ways I wish I could.

So, Happy Leap Day if you’re reading this in 2016.

quick-history-leap-year

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

I’m a writer and historian. Simple enough, right? I enjoy philosophy, sociology, social psychology, politics, basic programming, statistics, and old books. Unlike the stereotypical leftist, I do not necessarily censor myself. I apologize in advance if you find yourself offended by something I’ve said; but I do enjoy hearing criticism and having debates.

Related Articles

  • Book Review: The Elizabethan Renaissance by A. L. Rowse

    Book Review: The Elizabethan Renaissance by A. L. Rowse

    Alfred Leslie Rowse, oftentimes shortened to A. L. Rowse, is best known for his work on England under Queen Elizabeth I’s reign as monarch. He was born on December 4th, 1903, in Cornwall. Mr. Rowse is the perfect example of a man of greatness born against all odds, as both his mother and father lived

  • Women’s Roles in New England vs Women’s Roles in The South

    Women’s Roles in New England vs Women’s Roles in The South

    How could you compare and contrast women’s roles in New England with women’s roles in The South? Colonial America had a rather deep division between the north and south. As we know from generalized American history, the northern and southern traditions in America would eventually clash together to cause a great Civil War. But, as for

  • Professionalizing History 6: The Public History of Our Community

    Professionalizing History 6: The Public History of Our Community

    In the last installment of Professionalizing History, we talked about the new age question of whether or not it’s important to apologize for mistakes we’ve made in the past. I highly recommend reading this series in order by publish date in order to fully understand what it means to professionalize history. This time around, I’d like to

  • Napoleon Bonaparte, Anne Boleyn, and the Image of History

    Napoleon Bonaparte, Anne Boleyn, and the Image of History

    When it comes to history, we have to remain skeptical about traditional facts. Now, that doesn’t mean we should accept fake history. It means we shouldn’t take everything history presents to us as acceptable. Historians should go against the flow of contemporary politics, going as far to be at war with the victors in a sense.

POST YOUR COMMENTS

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website

Joseph Kaminski
I’m a writer and historian. Simple enough, right? I enjoy philosophy, sociology, social psychology, politics, basic programming, statistics, and old books.

Subscribe

Enter your email address to subscribe to this site and receive up-to-date notifications.

Join 348 other subscribers

AN IMPORTANT NOTICE

Dear reader,

In September 2016, my website server crashed. I've been working on fixing everything since.

This site is currently in a beta state, meaning that design changes and the addition of new features will be frequent.