Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Archive 3
Please see ancient weights and measures for previous edit history and discussions wrt this article.
Good, but...
You should expand the introduction more and give better citations for the measurements - citations go on the bottom of the article, also. See the wikipedia style guidelines to see how it's done. Xaa
The Greek Orders of Architecture were copied by the Romans
Disputed
See User:Egil/Sandbox/rktect#Articles_under_attack -- Egil
Disputed, again
It seems we have now got the version from the previous pseudoscientific attack from 2004, which we managed to weed out, but because it remained long enough in the English version for an Italian version to be made, we are now experiencing a deja vu by having this Italian version re-imported back into English! My brain hurts. Really.
This version was from an editor that was a firm believer in the Megalithic Yard as an absolute measure of everything, and thus wrote things like:
- The "theoretical" value of the Nippur ell is: 518 616 µm exactly. Therefore Romain foot is 296 352 µm. This is around 29.64 cm.
Help! -- Egil
- Hi Egil,
- You are right, the so-called Megalithic Yard is very doubtful.
- But that the Roman foot has been picked up from Egyptians as 16/28th of the Nippur cubit is indeed non-controversial in science.
- With friendly greetings, Paul.
Hallo Rktect,
First a tip: If you use "Show prewiew" bottom before a final save, the history pages would be easier to consult.
- You can give only 296 mm for the conventional Roman foot, that's not false. One day soon, the recently proposed value of 296 352 µm as defined, practical, conventional value for the Roman foot will be largely accepted in science. Because, on the one hand, that's 2^5 * 3^3 * 7^3 µm and thus gives round values for other related ancient measures. On the other hand this defined, conventional value is inside the range of mean values empirically calculated by modern statistical methodes. Thitherto both 296 mm as well as 296.4 mm is okey.
- I removed your insertion:
- There is a direct relationship between ancient lengths and the weights. Roman and Egyptian measures are divided into digits, palms, feet, remen and cubits with the relatonship 16 digits to a foot and 18.5 Roman digitus = 18.75 Egyptian dj. Biblical and Greek measures are divided into hands so three Greek hands = 4 Roman palms = 1 foot 1 Biblical cubit = 18" Ancient English and French measures are derived from the Romans and ancient Germanic measures are derived from the Greeks.
- because this insertion is outside of of the topic. If you know a real relationship between both values, we can discus this here. Sure, the English foot is considered to be 36/35 Roman foot and the Austrian foot is identical to the Greek "Pous metrios" but this is without regard to the relationship between Roman lengths and Roman weights.
-- Paul Martin
Hi Rktect, you answered inside of my statements. For better lisibility I allowed me to separated your reply: (Paul)
- I am more comfortable without going to decimal mm for two reasons. First even the Romans had some inaccurate, less than ideal, conflicting standards which make it hard to claim an accuracy to decimals of a mm and secondly I like to avoid going to mean values when there is a clear mathematical relationship.
- The stadium of 185 m being 625 x 16 = 10000 digitus suggests a preference for ease of computation. The remen being the hypotenuse of the quarter and foot, the mile being 75 stadia = 111 km.
- Roman and Egyptian measures are divided into digits, palms, feet, remen and cubits with the relatonship 16 digits to a foot and 18.5 Roman digitus = 18.75 Egyptian dj. Biblical and Greek measures are divided into hands so three Greek hands = 4 Roman palms = 1 foot 1 Biblical cubit = 18" Ancient English and French measures are derived from the Romans and ancient Germanic measures are derived from the Greeks.
- Its the very essence of the topic. Without knowing those kinds of details it becomes very difficult to tell the difference between Greek and Roman feet. If you know that one is always divided into palms and the other is always divided into hands it makes it a lot easier to tell them apart.
- Aside from basing everything on the ratio of column diameters to height as a euphamism for the parallels and using the resultant pleasing ratio to define standards of measure the issue becomes one of defining pleasing and harmonious loadbearing proportions using the geography of Pi and Phi. (The only number which is its own reciprocal)
- The Roman Vitruvius considers 16 an ideal number for anything to do with architectural measurement. As an architect he thinks of the Greek orders from which Roman architecture is derived as not quite so perfect as his Roman ideals. There is a direct relationship between ancient lengths and the weights in that architectural proportions are designed to take loads and look god doing it. Vitruvious says that 16 is ideal because it is composed of 10 and 6. I would be happy to discuss that using Normand's Parallel Orders.
- The relationship that the square of the length is the area and the cube of the length is the volume and thus the weight depends on the material and unit is far more ancient than the Romans.
Rktect
The aim of this modern definition: one Roman foot equal 296 352 µm (or Nippur Ell = 518 616 µm or Punic foot = 294 000 µm it's all the same) is to highlight the real existing "clear mathematical relationships" between ancient measures. But it's also clear that in ancient times good measure standards could turn around about ± 0.17%. (294 × 1.0017 = 294.4998) This means that all Roman foot specimen between 295.849 and 296.855 mm are quite good enough. If you want continue to wear you by using other values than 296.352 mm, that's your right. Me, I decided to recognise and to adopte this definition discried and formulated by a friend of mine in 2003.
You said: "the mile being 75 stadia = 111 km" ??? The Romain mile equal 5000 Roman feet. 75 Roman miles equal 375 000 Roman feet equal 600 Roman-attic stadions or 625 stadions of Delphi or 578 stadions of Olympia. It's that, what you want to say? So, that's true.
You wrote: "Ancient English and French measures are derived from the Roman [...] measures." You can give me the good ratio between Roman foot and the "pied du Roy de France" of about 324.8394 mm i.e. about 109.6% of Roman foot? If yes, I'am highly interested to hear it(!!), because hitherto no one gave me a convincible ratio (like this is the case for many mediaeval measures, because in Middle-Ages metrologistes not always refer to already existing standards, like it is the case in Antiquity with their international trade relationships.)
You wrote: "The relationship that the square of the length is the area and the cube of the length is the volume and thus the weight depends on the material and unit is far more ancient than the Romans." I answer you: "The truth is concrete." This means: Which numbering relationship (= ratio) between Roman lenghts and weights? It's not the weight of water in a cube, that's sure, because four Roman digits cube gives about 406.67 ml or grams i.e. about 0.932% of the weight of a Greek mine. I don't know any concrete ratio. Do you know one, say? Spongy referring to "hands", don't help.
The problem with "ideals" is that ideals are not objective. What you or another juge ideal, a third one (with good arguments too) considers not-ideal. You know. But it's true, sixteen is both an old system and a very modern one (cf. there)
I don't read Charles Normand. I can't juge it and I don't think that I'll have time to read it. But I imagine that he treats systems like the mediaeval measure systems based to the Fibonacci suite: 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987...
This can be interesting with condition that you clearly distinguish them from the main and standard systems:
In the mediaeval standard system the palm has 36 lines, the foot 144 lines, the cubit 216 lines.
The mediaeval "Royal canna" has 555 lines composed by one "palmus minor" with 34 lines, one "palmus maior" with 55 lines, one "palma" with 89 lines, then: one foot equal to the foot of the standard system and one cubit 17 lines longer. It's a legitim system, but it's not the standard system.
It's important to discern this clearly. No confusions please.
--Paul Martin