Talk:Siege of Paris (845)

	Siege of Paris (845) has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result May 16, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on May 1, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Danish Vikings sacked Paris in 845 (pictured), and did not leave until being paid a ransom of 7,000 pounds (3,200 kg) of gold and silver?
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on March 29, 2016, March 29, 2017, March 29, 2020, and March 29, 2022.

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / Nordic / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Nordic military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. France: Paris Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Paris task force.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 April 2021 and 21 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sparksc760. Peer reviewers: Bffiore4.

Above undated message substituted from

The 7000 pounds may or may not have been the same Livre de Paris. The source for that is Sawyer, and it just says "7000 pounds" without saying what kind of pounds. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, persistence trumps reason here on Wikipedia. Oh well. Kendall-K1 (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick search, I found two sources which give the Danegeld payment as "7,000 pounds (3,175 kg)" [1] [2], but I don't know whether they have simply converted to kg by considering the payment as modern pounds, which would probably be incorrect(?). Thhist (talk) 17:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's almost certainly wrong, as it's an exact conversion from modern US pounds (7000 * .453592 = 3175.144). Apparently French pounds weren't standardized until the 1300s so it may not be possible to convert to modern units. Still, Wikipedia values verifiability over truth, even when the source is clearly wrong. I guess if I had my way we would say something like "about 3000 Kg", but that requires drawing a conclusion that's not given in any of the sources. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:59, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True. I don't think verifiability matters though, when as you have found, a claim can be proved to be erroneous in some way, in this case by hard mathematics. In my opinion it's probably best to just leave it as it is without any conversion, at least until a more reliable scholarly source can be found. Thhist (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At Pound (mass)#French livre, a previous livre is cited for the relevant time period, using the same source that has been added by the user here ([3]). This would however convert the 7,000 pounds to 2569 kg according to my calculations, and not 3426. Another reliable source gives the same information for the 800s livre here: [4]. Thhist (talk) 06:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So the best we can do is say it's probably somewhere between 2500 and 3500 Kg, and even that requires making some assumptions. I think you're probably right about just leaving it the way it is. By the way, Avi8tor continues to revert. I see he's a new editor, and may be unaware of this discussion, so I'll leave an invite on his talk page. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calling it pounds is wrong because at the time of the siege of Paris it was "livre", which is why pounds have the abbreviation lb for libre, (latin for scale). Lets face it, measurement was a mess with no common standards until the metric system standardized things. Calling it pounds gives any reader the idea that this is the same pound as the present US pound which it obviously is not. With 94% of the planets inhabitants living in metric countries with no feeling for pounds, I think it's appropriate to give some idea of what this means in modern units, i.e. kilograms. When I saw this my immediate thought was what was the mass of the ransom, obviously not 7000 present day pounds! ~~Avi8tor~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.191.83.106 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree leaving it at "7000 pounds" is not good for the reasons you state. I'm just having trouble deciding what else to say. The sources we have are obviously wrong about it being 3175 kg, and we can't be sure whether it's 2569, 3426, or something else. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:35, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we use the source that I cited above, "Revolution in Measurement: Western European Weights and Measures Since the Age of Science" (it gives the same values as the website cited by Avi8tor) I think we actually do. The livre used from c. 1350 to 1800 of 489.5g (7000 * .4895 = 3426.5) is the one that gives 3426 kg, and must then be wrong. The livre used from c. 800 to c. 1350 of 367.1g (7000 * .3671 = 2569.7) gives 2569 kg (actually 2570), which should be correct if the 7,000 number is from a near-contemporary source. Thhist (talk) 14:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could go along with that. I'm a bit uncomfortable because there's some Original Research there, and uncertainty. For example, the 7000 could actually be modern US pounds, having been converted from some other unit. But I think it's better to get some kind of magnitude in the article than to just leave it at "7000 pounds." And I'd rather do the right thing than to blindly stick to the letter of the Wikipedia rules. Maybe also change it to "7000 livres" so people don't think it's US pounds? And/or link to

Units of measurement in France? Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I think I just found the original source which gives the number, in this collection/translation of primary sources: [5] (alt: [6]). The original source seems to be the Annales Bertiniani (per the previous page and the "(a)"), a 9th century annal covering the years 830-82, which says under the year 845 "7,000 livres". I can only understand that this should be converted to 2570 kg (as per the conversion charts). Thhist (talk) 20:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, excellent work! Let's go with 2570, with the Annals as a source, and a link to

Units of measurement in France, ok? Thanks for clearing this up. Kendall-K1 (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Excellent work! I have to agree the 2570 figure looks more accurate and the inclusion of Livres shows what unit they were using. Avi8tor (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I've now corrected the conversion in the article accordingly. Thanks for the insights on the issue—and pointing it out in the first place. I'd probably just ignore it if not, but in the end it's pretty satisfying to have found a conclusive answer instead of just leaving it an open question. (Also, it probably helps for the GA nom!) Thhist (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is linked to French livre initially in this article. It seems misleading, as the linked article is about the currency rather than the unit of mass. I am tough not comfortable with linking it to the article about pounds, as the article doesn't cover the french unit from the time of the siege (845, or the first half of the ninth century). Grrahnbahr (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The currency and the unit of mass were the same thing at the time. The currency was defined as the value of one pound of silver. So I don't think this is a problem. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked at it again, you're right that it's misleading, because it was 7000 livres of silver and gold, not just silver. I'm not quite sure what to do about this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think de-linking is probably the best thing given we don't have an article on that particular unit of mass. Thanks for fixing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 19:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Some day we may find an article we could link to. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]