# 1999 in Roman Numerals

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-in-roman-numerals/39475>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [November 2, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-in-roman-numerals/39475 "2000-11-02T23:38:32Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 3\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![panache45](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/panache45/32/64_2.png) [@panache45](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/panache45)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-in-roman-numerals/39475/1 "2000-11-02T23:38:32Z")

</div>

What was the year “1999” in Roman Numerals? Why wasn’t it “MIM” (a thousand, plus one less than a thousand)?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pluto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f08c70/32.png) [@pluto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pluto)\
**Post date:** [November 2, 2000, 11:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-in-roman-numerals/39475/2 "2000-11-02T23:47:20Z")

</div>

I always thought the rule was that you could only “subtract” units that were one order of magnitude less —

IX = 9, XC = 90, CM = 900, but not IC = 99 or IM = 999.

If I’m correct then 1999 would be MCMXCIX – which still has a certain elegance, IMO, if not the symmetry of MIM.

And would the Y2K problem have been the AMM problem in Rome?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Arjuna34](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb8c5e/32.png) [@Arjuna34](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arjuna34)\
**Post date:** [November 3, 2000, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/1999-in-roman-numerals/39475/3 "2000-11-03T00:00:39Z")

</div>

Here’s the answer from Cecil:  
[http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3\_375.html](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_375.html)

Interestingly (to me anyway), this is the second time in one hour that I’ve posted this link to the GQ forum.

Arjuna34