Yes, January and February were added to the end of the Roman year, which is why February is the short month. It was until the 16th century that for administrative purposes European governments began treating January as the first month (being nearest the winter solstice). Confusingly, prior to that though March was considered the first month, New Year's Day was March 25, being (almost) the vernal equinox. This led to oddities such as March 24th 1485 being followed by March 25th 1486.
The slow switch to Jan 1 also led to an historical phenomenon called "double dating" where you can find documents from the period dated "2 Feb 1687/88", meaning 2 Feb of the year 1687 if you thought the new year didn't start until March, or 1688 if you were a January guy.
Yes, January and February were added to the end of the Roman year, which is why February is the short month. It was until the 16th century that for administrative purposes European governments began treating January as the first month (being nearest the winter solstice). Confusingly, prior to that though March was considered the first month, New Year's Day was March 25, being (almost) the vernal equinox. This led to oddities such as March 24th 1485 being followed by March 25th 1486.
The slow switch to Jan 1 also led to an historical phenomenon called "double dating" where you can find documents from the period dated "2 Feb 1687/88", meaning 2 Feb of the year 1687 if you thought the new year didn't start until March, or 1688 if you were a January guy.