3 ms·

The pre-metric measurements in France weren’t imperial, but local: units had the same name, but different cities defined them differently. A livre[0] in one vi

by selkin 1y ago

The pre-metric measurements in France weren’t imperial, but local: units had the same name, but different cities defined them differently. A livre[0] in one village was almost, but not quite, the livre used by the one only a couple toise[1] away. [0] about a modern pound, depending where you were. Toulouse’s livre was almost 1.3 modern pounds, for example. [1] about 13853/27000 meter.

hilbert42 1y ago
You're right, I should have put 'imperial' in quotes as it's not the same as the British Imperial measurement. You'll note however I did distinguish the French system from the British one by referring to it in lowercase, that was intentional. The issue came up in a round about way on HN several weeks ago and I should have been more careful here because I wasn't precise enough in my comment then. As I inferred in that post 'imperial' nomenclature is used rather loosely to refer to measurement and coinage/currency as they're often closely linked (in the sense that the 'Crown' once regulated both). Pre-revolution French coinage used the same 1/12/20 number divisions as did the old English LSD and currencies in other parts of Europe, and that system is often referred to as 'imperial' coinage which likely goes back to Roman Imperial Coinage — but to confuse matters it was decimal. One can't cover the long historical lineage here except to mention the sign for the Roman [decimal] denarius is 'd' which is also used for the LSD penny, 12 of which make the shilling (£=240d). So for various reasons both 'old' physical measurement and 'old' coinage are often referred to as (I)imperial. To add to the confusion, modern currencies when converting from LSD/1/12/20 to metric and '1/12… measurement' are often done around the same time. Nomenclature overlaps. For example, I'm in Australia and the 1966 conversion from LSD to metrified coinage occurred shortly before the metrication of measurement. It was all lumped together as Imperial (note u/c) to Metric (that's how the public perceived it). The Government staged both changeovers close enough so that the reeducation of the citizenry wasn't forgotten by the time the measurement program started. For the record here's part of length in the old French measurement system: "Pied du Roi (foot) ≈ 32.48 cm (Slightly longer than an English foot, which is about 30.48 cm.) Pouce (inch) = 1/12 of a pied ≈ 2.707 cm Ligne = 1/12 of a pouce ≈ 2.256 mm Toise ≈ 1.949 metres (A toise is 6 pieds.) <...>" The other units can be found on the same site: https://interessia.com/medieval-french-measurements/ https://interessia.com/medieval-french-measurements/
- selkin 1y ago
  I think I wasn't clear about the point I was trying to make, because your comment seems unrelated to it. Pre-metrification there wasn't a French unit system, like we think about those today, where a meter in Paris is the same meter used in Limoges. The actual length of a ligne changed from one region to the next. There was no country wide standard of exactly how much a certain unit is. Such standards were regional, at best, sometimes the regions being as small as a single village. This is one of the most important results of the French resolution: a consistent system of measurements, regardless of the units chosen for it.
  - hilbert42 1y ago
    Right. Essentially, before the Enlightenment systems of weights and measures didn't exist in the standardized way we know it today—measurements traceable to national/international standards, etc. That's not to say local standards—let's call them weights and measures—weren't strictly adhered to and enforced. They were. There are many recorded instances from history to illustrate the point from, say, Archimedes' eureka moment to that of the obsessive and overzealous Issac Newton† when Warden of the Royal Mint was roaming around London checking for clipped coins and bringing the perpetrators to justice. I'm fiercely pro-metric, and I've had much to say on the matter on HN over the years. So I'm used to the guns coming out from those in the US defending the Imperial system. I've good reason, at school I learned the Imperial system, CGS and MKS (it was before SI). In say physics learning to do things fluently in three different systems was a recipe for mistakes and confusion. At the risk of repeating myself (link below), learning foot poundals, dynes and Newtons was bad enough but to have to convert between them in exams really was pretty rotten. The other reasons I've also menrioned, I've sat on standards committees and have writtern standards (nothing as illustrious as the ISO but it was for an intergovernmental organization nonetheless). Writing standards is often a tedious thankless task (I don't have to tell you people don't read them for the fun of it). The link below is me getting worked up on HN over the metric system over a number of rolling posts, and it's not the first. I've referred to it here more for the sake of completeness than anything else. (I don't like rereading my old posts so I don't expect others to do so.) https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43880977 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43880977 † Newton. Not exactly weights and measures but a well documented case: https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/2021/04/30/sir-isaac-newton-warden-of-the-mint/ https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/2021/04/30/sir-isaac-n...

by selkin 1y ago

hilbert42 1y ago

You're right, I should have put 'imperial' in quotes as it's not the same as the British Imperial measurement. You'll note however I did distinguish the French system from the British one by referring to it in lowercase, that was intentional. The issue came up in a round about way on HN several weeks ago and I should have been more careful here because I wasn't precise enough in my comment then. As I inferred in that post 'imperial' nomenclature is used rather loosely to refer to measurement and coinage/currency as they're often closely linked (in the sense that the 'Crown' once regulated both). Pre-revolution French coinage used the same 1/12/20 number divisions as did the old English LSD and currencies in other parts of Europe, and that system is often referred to as 'imperial' coinage which likely goes back to Roman Imperial Coinage — but to confuse matters it was decimal. One can't cover the long historical lineage here except to mention the sign for the Roman [decimal] denarius is 'd' which is also used for the LSD penny, 12 of which make the shilling (£=240d). So for various reasons both 'old' physical measurement and 'old' coinage are often referred to as (I)imperial. To add to the confusion, modern currencies when converting from LSD/1/12/20 to metric and '1/12… measurement' are often done around the same time. Nomenclature overlaps. For example, I'm in Australia and the 1966 conversion from LSD to metrified coinage occurred shortly before the metrication of measurement. It was all lumped together as Imperial (note u/c) to Metric (that's how the public perceived it). The Government staged both changeovers close enough so that the reeducation of the citizenry wasn't forgotten by the time the measurement program started. For the record here's part of length in the old French measurement system: "Pied du Roi (foot) ≈ 32.48 cm (Slightly longer than an English foot, which is about 30.48 cm.) Pouce (inch) = 1/12 of a pied ≈ 2.707 cm Ligne = 1/12 of a pouce ≈ 2.256 mm Toise ≈ 1.949 metres (A toise is 6 pieds.) <...>" The other units can be found on the same site: https://interessia.com/medieval-french-measurements/ https://interessia.com/medieval-french-measurements/

selkin 1y ago
I think I wasn't clear about the point I was trying to make, because your comment seems unrelated to it. Pre-metrification there wasn't a French unit system, like we think about those today, where a meter in Paris is the same meter used in Limoges. The actual length of a ligne changed from one region to the next. There was no country wide standard of exactly how much a certain unit is. Such standards were regional, at best, sometimes the regions being as small as a single village. This is one of the most important results of the French resolution: a consistent system of measurements, regardless of the units chosen for it.
- hilbert42 1y ago
  Right. Essentially, before the Enlightenment systems of weights and measures didn't exist in the standardized way we know it today—measurements traceable to national/international standards, etc. That's not to say local standards—let's call them weights and measures—weren't strictly adhered to and enforced. They were. There are many recorded instances from history to illustrate the point from, say, Archimedes' eureka moment to that of the obsessive and overzealous Issac Newton† when Warden of the Royal Mint was roaming around London checking for clipped coins and bringing the perpetrators to justice. I'm fiercely pro-metric, and I've had much to say on the matter on HN over the years. So I'm used to the guns coming out from those in the US defending the Imperial system. I've good reason, at school I learned the Imperial system, CGS and MKS (it was before SI). In say physics learning to do things fluently in three different systems was a recipe for mistakes and confusion. At the risk of repeating myself (link below), learning foot poundals, dynes and Newtons was bad enough but to have to convert between them in exams really was pretty rotten. The other reasons I've also menrioned, I've sat on standards committees and have writtern standards (nothing as illustrious as the ISO but it was for an intergovernmental organization nonetheless). Writing standards is often a tedious thankless task (I don't have to tell you people don't read them for the fun of it). The link below is me getting worked up on HN over the metric system over a number of rolling posts, and it's not the first. I've referred to it here more for the sake of completeness than anything else. (I don't like rereading my old posts so I don't expect others to do so.) https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43880977 https://news.ycombinator.com/context?id=43880977 † Newton. Not exactly weights and measures but a well documented case: https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/2021/04/30/sir-isaac-newton-warden-of-the-mint/ https://coinsandhistoryfoundation.org/2021/04/30/sir-isaac-n...