# What base are Roman Numerals considered to have?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-base-are-roman-numerals-considered-to-have/484202>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 3, 2009, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-base-are-roman-numerals-considered-to-have/484202 "2009-02-03T02:21:17Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Indistinguishable](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/90ced4/32.png) [@Indistinguishable](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Indistinguishable)\
**Post date:** [February 3, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-base-are-roman-numerals-considered-to-have/484202/41 "2009-02-03T22:57:29Z")

</div>

> [@panamajack](#):
>
> I was around the same age when someone showed something similar to me as a method for doing addition. Each numeral has a specific pattern of points on it equal to its number. When adding several numbers at once, you just count up instead of adding the numbers individually. At that age, it was just as fast and even today I use it to check my work.

Is this any different from just adding via counting tally marks? I.e., to add 3 and 4 you say “Ok, ||| and |||| makes how many total tally marks? Hm… one, two, three, four, five, six, seven. Ah, yes, the answer is 7.”

Which also seems, I would say, fundamentally no different from the method employed by the child who counts on his fingers. Back to the basics, so to speak. But what’s the advantage? For numbers of any significant size, it’s grossly slow, and for tiny numbers, it’s no faster or easier than any other method, is it?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-base-are-roman-numerals-considered-to-have/484202.md?page=2)