IV

V

VI

VII

VIII

IX

X

XI

XII

XIII

XIIII

XIIII

^Nope. Try again 

 

XV

XVI

 

Theo is valid, there is no rule that says you can't do it that way

XVII

 

But you don't usually. Its just not practical.

XVIII

XIX

0

 

:3

I

II

III

IV

V

 

there are reasons to use IIII instead of IV

Interesting... however with no contemporary logs as to the precise rules, one could assume that VIIII would've been just as valid but may have been considered less... ideal.

 

I

The rule was to use IIII, etc.

 

However the merchant class used the numbering with subtraction rules due to the use of the abacus ... to my knowledge anyway

 

Thus as Blade suggests VIIII or XXXX or LXXXXVIIII etc etc

 

 

II