Even to someone like myself, a committed and practising Christian, this is problematic.

I do indeed believe he was the most important figure in history, but I certainly don’t want to impose that view on anyone else.

What I’ve really got against the new dating, I suppose, is that it just confuses the very building blocks of history. There are so many contentious things in history, why artificially create another one?

He wrote extensively of astronomy and the calendar, including methods of calculating the Easter holy day.

Moreover, with the completion of (~742-814 AD) was the catalyst that introduced and accelerated its popularity onto the European mainland.

Also, it suggests a linear view of history; that only one chronological sequence – the Western one which runs from Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia, through the Greeks, the Romans, the European Middle Ages and on to the “Rise of the West” – is THE important one.

Events and developments which don’t lie along this line are only of real historical significance in so far as they impinge on the main sequence.

These operations met with such success that, by the time of his death, his domain included much of Western Europe and he was later considered by some to be the founder of Europe.

It was an event in 800AD however, that would change the European religious and political landscape for centuries to come.

Charlemagne (aka Charles I and Charles the Great) became the ruler of the Franks about 770AD.

During his early reign, he launched many military campaigns in an attempt to merge the Germanic and other European groups into a united Christian kingdom.

What does the dating of history around the label “Common Era” imply but that the Western world, with which the Common Era is inextricably linked, is the one which can and should set the terms of history?