# Roman Numeral Question **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [November 10, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234 "2014-11-10T12:54:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 17\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![SanDiegoTim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/85e7bf/32.png) [@SanDiegoTim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SanDiegoTim)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 12:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/1 "2014-11-10T12:54:45Z")
I would have thought the Roman Numeral for the number 95 would be VC. The C being 100 and the V, preceding it, being 5 and making the combination 95. However, doing a crossword last night the puzzle provided three squares. My wife came up with XCV. Makes sense in that the X (10) reduces the C (100) to 90 and the V adds the five. Are both correct? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/2 "2014-11-10T13:11:06Z")
No. Think of Roman numerals as a form of base 10. XC+V = 90+5 VC is not a base-10 formulation. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/3 "2014-11-10T14:32:43Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > No. Think of Roman numerals as a form of base 10. > > XC+V = 90+5 Bingo. Similarly 995 would be CMXCV, never VM ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/4 "2014-11-10T15:01:43Z")
Note that the strict rule regarding the subtractive convention for Roman numerals is modern. It was not used in a consistent manner by the Romans, in medieval times, or even up until the turn of the 20th century: > **[Roman numerals](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numerals#Alternative_forms)** > > Roman numerals are a numeral system that originated in ancient Rome and remained the usual way of writing numbers throughout Europe well into the Late Middle Ages. Numbers are written with combinations of letters from the Latin alphabet, each with a fixed integer value. The modern style uses only these seven: > The use of Roman numerals continued long after the decline of the Roman Empire. From the 14th century on, Roman numerals began to be replaced by Arabic numerals; however, this process w... > [@](#): > > Roman inscriptions, especially in official contexts, seem to show a preference for additive forms such as IIII and VIIII instead of (or even as well as) subtractive forms such as IV and IX. Both methods appear in documents from the Roman era, even within the same document. “Double subtractives” also occur, such as XIIX or even IIXX instead of XVIII. Sometimes V and L are not used, with instances such as IIIIII and XXXXXX rather than VI or LX.[8][9] I believe inscriptions on the Coliseum show a mix of conventions, including such things as “IL” for 49. As noted in that wiki article, there are holdovers such as “IIII” for 4 on watch faces. > [@](#): > > At the beginning of the 20th century, confusion over the correct representation of 900 (conventionally CM) was reflected in several inscribed dates: for instance 1910 is shown on Admiralty Arch, London, as MDCCCCX rather than MCMX. On the north entrance to the Saint Louis Art Museum, 1903 was inscribed as MDCDIII rather than MCMIII.[13] ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/5 "2014-11-10T16:00:46Z")
> [@SanDiegoTim](#): > > I would have thought the Roman Numeral for the number 95 would be VC. The C being 100 and the V, preceding it, being 5 and making the combination 95. > > However, doing a crossword last night the puzzle provided three squares. My wife came up with XCV. Makes sense in that the X (10) reduces the C (100) to 90 and the V adds the five. > > Are both correct? As yabob pointed out, the whole “subtraction” thing with Roman numerals is largely a modern invention, and was rarely used by the Romans themselves, and there are plenty of examples where it has been, shall we say, inconsistent. I would say yes both are correct, but the latter is more standard. LXXXXV = 50 plus 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 10 plus 5 VC = 5 less than 100 LXLV = 50 plus (10 less than 50) plus 5 XCV = (10 less than 100) plus 5 All of them are correct, but the last one is the more accepted answer by modern standards while the first would be more common by ancient standards. I seem to recall reading an article where the author downloaded four different computer apps which claimed they would convert Arabic numerals to Roman numerals. He put in a number that was just a little bit less than 2000 and the four apps gave four different answers. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/6 "2014-11-10T17:40:51Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > No. Think of Roman numerals as a form of base 10. > > XC+V = 90+5 > > VC is not a base-10 formulation. > [@Kobal2](#): > > Bingo. > Similarly 995 would be CMXCV, never VM Thanks. I always liked Roman numerals, and tend to use them frequently, and had often wondered what was the logic behind the rules. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/7 "2014-11-10T20:07:34Z")
An old [column](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1371/what-is-the-proper-way-to-style-roman-numerals-for-the-1990s) by some guy named Cecil something. [Two](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=44801) [old](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=49388) threads. (And I do mean old.) Me, I have no problem with MIM for 1999, for example. ---
**Author:** ![yabob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yabob/32/2821_2.png) [@yabob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yabob)\ **Post date:** [November 10, 2014, 11:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/8 "2014-11-10T23:10:53Z")
I thought 1999 had a certain aesthetic appeal to it - “MCMXCIX”. But I wondered if the turn of the 21st century would put a stop to use of Roman numerals in movie credits and so on - “MM” just doesn’t create much of an impression. Nope. Didn’t stop them. I’m waiting to see if somebody finds something lacking in “Super Bowl L” in a couple years. ---
**Author:** ![Lucas\_Jackson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lucas_jackson/32/303_2.png) [@Lucas\_Jackson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucas_Jackson)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/9 "2014-11-11T03:47:55Z")
Since the OP has been answered… What is 505? DV? DIIV? ---
**Author:** ![CalMeacham](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/calmeacham/32/35_2.png) [@CalMeacham](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CalMeacham)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/10 "2014-11-11T13:40:21Z")
Classical Roman Computer Messages: **Error CDIV: Nuntius non iveni** ---
**Author:** ![sbunny8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c77e96/32.png) [@sbunny8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sbunny8)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/11 "2014-11-11T15:30:39Z")
> [@White SIFL](#): > > Since the OP has been answered… > What is 505? > DV? > DIIV? CCCCCIIIII = 5x100 + 5x1 DV = 500 + 5 Either of those is correct, but the second one is more accepted by modern standards. DIIV would be 500 + (5-2) = 503, but the more common way of saying 503 is DIII. ---
**Author:** ![I.Dunno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9f8e36/32.png) [@I.Dunno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I.Dunno)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/12 "2014-11-11T16:20:04Z")
> [@yabob](#): > > I thought 1999 had a certain aesthetic appeal to it - “MCMXCIX”. But I wondered if the turn of the 21st century would put a stop to use of Roman numerals in movie credits and so on - “MM” just doesn’t create much of an impression. Nope. Didn’t stop them. I’m waiting to see if somebody finds something lacking in “Super Bowl L” in a couple years. I have read that the NFL will use “50” for that SB. And then go back to Roman numerals again after. I suspect part of the reason is the “lameness” of a single L for the game although they say not. Just want to especially celebrate the 50th SB. ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/13 "2014-11-11T17:45:34Z")
Super Bowl L will be big, but not as big as Super Bowl XL was. mmm ---
**Author:** ![I.Dunno](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9f8e36/32.png) [@I.Dunno](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I.Dunno)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2014, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/14 "2014-11-11T18:05:41Z")
> [@CalMeacham](#): > > Classical Roman Computer Messages: > > **Error CDIV: Nuntius non iveni** > [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Super Bowl L will be big, but not as big as Super Bowl XL was. > mmm I love this site. Lots of wits on here. Me, I’m just a half-wit. ---
**Author:** ![Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e47c2d/32.png) [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 12:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/15 "2014-11-12T00:28:35Z")
> [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](#): > > Super Bowl L will be big, but not as big as Super Bowl XL was. > mmm You should have signed this post “3,000.” ---
**Author:** ![Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mean_mr.mustard/32/3865_2.png) [@Mean\_Mr.Mustard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mean_Mr.Mustard)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2014, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/16 "2014-11-12T11:38:13Z")
> [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](#): > > You should have signed this post “3,000.” Not thinking of that will haunt me the rest of my days. mmm ---
**Author:** ![gigi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a587f6/32.png) [@gigi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gigi)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 11:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/roman-numeral-question/704234/17 "2014-11-14T23:33:38Z")
> [@I.Dunno](#): > > I love this site. Lots of wits on here. Me, I’m just a half-wit. Oh, I. Dunno.