What leads us to the conclusion the story is set in 160 AD? I ask because Trajan died in 117 AD--30 years later would be 147 (and that's an estimate). I remember there was a concrete reason as to why 160 AD was the year, but I can't seem to find that conversation. TR (talk) 18:50, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
- Good question. I don't recall. From context, the date might be mentioned in the story itself so HT may have gotten it wrong if we go by Trajan's death. I don't own a copy of the book (must check used bookstores for it) but I'll check the public library probably early next week. ML4E (talk) 22:44, November 30, 2012 (UTC)
- I doubt Turtledove would be off by that much; Roman history is near and dear to him, and he was more reliable with such things generally back then. Turtle Fan (talk) 20:18, December 2, 2012 (UTC)
I got the book out from the library today and find in para 2 of the story Clodius Eprius telling the two time-travelers that the wine he is serving them was "laid down the year Hadrian died, eight - no, nine years ago now". Hadrian died AD 138 plus nine gives us 147 (again). Checking the history of the article, I see that I wrote the second paragraph giving the date about AD 160. I can't remember why, but I will be rereading the story so I will be keeping an eye out for why I concluded 160. In the meantime, would it be worthwhile changing the date to 147? ML4E (talk) 23:11, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
- Let's leave it alone for the moment, just because there might be a reason for 160. TR (talk) 23:57, December 5, 2012 (UTC)
- If there is something from 160 later on, it would at best be Inconsistencies material. So we can't call the story a 160 occurrence any longer. Though I suppose it wouldn't make much sense to change it right away and run the risk of just having to change it again almost immediately. Turtle Fan (talk) 04:13, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
I have reread the story and think I got the date from a comment that Mark Alvarez was whistling a tune that wouldn't be written for another 19 centuries. Since they come from 2059, I rounded it to 160 AD. I probably should have said "back to the second century AD" instead. All I can say is that I did this in 2007 and was not yet keyed to look for these little clues as to when a story was taking place. ML4E (talk) 21:29, December 6, 2012 (UTC)
Arthur C. Clarke[]
An anonymous user just added that the Romans' attitude toward the gun is a direct rebuttal to Clarke's Third Law. I don't see any reason to think this, unless Turtledove specifically said so. The theme of primitive people deducing how to use modern technology is pretty generic.Matthew Babe Stevenson (talk) 17:35, November 21, 2019 (UTC)
- I seem to recall that HT did say this, but I can't remember in what context. TR (talk) 17:52, November 21, 2019 (UTC)
- I remember that there were little mini-essays by HT before each story in Departures. That would be my guess. Turtle Fan (talk) 19:58, November 21, 2019 (UTC)
I don't recall that being said by Turtledove, either in the Departures story preface or elsewhere, although I could be mistaken. I do recall this assertion being made on the TvTropes page for Turtledove. Unlike Wikipedia, they don't require sourcing for such things. ML4E (talk) 20:45, November 21, 2019 (UTC)