Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 6

Currency equivalents

If one Thaler is US 20 cents, and one Gulden is two-thirds of a Thaler, how many dollars is 21 million Gulden equal to? Uhlan ^talk 02:11, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do your own homework.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Your question appears to be a homework question. I apologize if this is a misinterpretation, but it is our aim here not to do people's homework for them, but to merely aid them in doing it themselves. Letting someone else do your homework does not help you learn nearly as much as doing it yourself. Please attempt to solve the problem or answer the question yourself first. If you need help with a specific part of your homework, feel free to tell us where you are stuck and ask for help. If you need help grasping the concept of a problem, by all means let us know. StuRat (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only places still using "gulden" - or guilders in English - are the constituent areas of the former Netherlands Antilles. The current exchange rate gives $ 11 731 843.62 - but they don't use thalers so your question is probably unanswerable in terms of modern currency.81.132.106.10 (talk) 08:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unless he's using mustard as currency. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As a non-American I had to use Google to understand the joke. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC) 81.132.106.10 (talk) 15:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Gulden's. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:05, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's not that difficult to work out; basic maths will get you there:

1 Thaler = 20 cents

1 Gulden (at 2/3ds. of a Thaler) = (20 x .66=) 13.2 cents

21 million Gulden = (13.2 x 21m.=) 277.2m. cents

277.2m. cents = (÷ 100=) US$2.772m.

And, on the basis that that answers your question...

Resolved

86.164.42.50 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

0.66 is not the same as two thirds - and while the difference would be small on each dollar it mounts up when you calculate for 21 million. You are actually 28,000 dollars short. 81.132.106.10 (talk) 11:32, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Better avoid rounding errors like that. Only your first significant figure is correct.

1 thaler = ⁠15⁠ dollar

1 gulden = ⁠23⁠×⁠15⁠=⁠215⁠ dollar

21 million gulden = 21 millon × ⁠215⁠ dollar =

You should be able to do that one yourself. Seeing that 21 and 15 are both divisible by 3 and division by 5 is easy, you should be able to get there by simple mental calculation. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval bridges?

Hello,

Where can I find credible academic sources about medieval bridges? Particularly in France. For a school project. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also - I seem to remember something about a bridge collapse in the Middle Ages which disrupted an entire trade route that went past that bridge and had huge economic consequences for all towns along the route. (It might have been the champagne fairs). Does anyone know which bridge that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't that bridge have to be over a river that couldn't easily be crossed by boat, like a deep canyon, or rapids ? That might help us figure out where to look. Some of the rope bridges in South America may qualify, but the term Middle Ages usually means Europe. StuRat (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I guess so ... also, how long would it have taken to build a stone bridge in, say, 1180? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That would depend on how many people worked on it and the size and design. If cathedrals were any guide, they could take generations to complete. In the case of a bridge, they might well build a temporary wooden structure while the stone one was under construction. StuRat (talk) 21:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! That's really interesting. I don't suppose there is a source I can use for that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to London Bridge, the first stone bridge across the Thames at London took 33 years to build, from 1176 to 1209. The Pont Neuf in Paris apparently took 28 years, from 1578 to 1606. --ColinFine (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Pont Neuf is the oldest bridge crossing the Seine that has survived to the present day. Construction began in 1578, putting it in the Early Modern period. It is a Renaissance bridge.
Sleigh (talk) 00:45, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See also bridge chapel; medieval priorities didn't stop at getting from A to B but also from here to the hereafter. Alansplodge (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some information in Medieval Science, Technology, and Medicine: An Encyclopedia by Thomas F. Glick, Steven Livesey, Faith Wallis (p. 103), Bridge Engineering: A Global Perspective by Leonardo Fernández Troyano (p. 110 onwards) and The Archaeology of Medieval England and Wales by John Steane (p. 112). Alansplodge (talk) 01:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Pont Saint-Bénézet at Avignon which was built between 1177 and 1185. This is quite impressive as it was 900 metres long (see the notes and references for sources). Alansplodge (talk) 01:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What's so special about France? Pont Saint-Bénézet was built in the Kingdom of Arles in the Holy Roman Empire. Avignon was sold to the Papal States in 1348.
Sleigh (talk) 04:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, but the OP asked about bridges "Particularly in France" and it's in France now innit? Alansplodge (talk) 08:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Parler's Charles Bridge took 45 years to build, although it is worth pointing out that the Czechs are notoriously lethargic about such things; their cathedral took the thick end of 600 years to put up. 148.122.187.2 (talk) 08:18, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And from that article is a link to bridge tower, but sadly no references. Alansplodge (talk) 08:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the info! Is there a source I could use for mentioning a temporary wooden bridge while the new one was being constructed? And also, where can I find info about how they paid for it (was it tolls?) and if no temporary bridge would they have had a ferry service of some kind? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When the English invaded France from the Pale of Calais, they asked the locals where the fords were.
Sleigh (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes to ferry boats, but there was always the problem that a single ferry boat operator (lacking competition or regulation) might charge more than a peasant could afford. Even the Code of Hammurabi recognized this as a potential problem, and set rates for ferry boat crossings. Of course, bridge tolls could also be a problem, whether the toll-taker was legally authorized or not. StuRat (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that from the novel World Without End! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 11:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to bridge tolls, have a look at the John Steane (p. 112) reference that I linked above, where it says that the tolls were collected by the priest or hermit living in the bridge chapel. See also the Bridge House Trust, which is still the funding body for the City of London's bridges; control of London Bridge's finances had been taken out of the hands of the Church by the City at an early date. Alansplodge (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Huge thanks for all the info! I really appreciate it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 00:20, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So my problem is, I know they used ferry boats, but I need to cite this fact. Also, I need somewhere to research bridge scour (and how they engineered the bridges to reduce this) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.233.174.42 (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the most effective ways to prevent bridge scour and flowing water from eroding the supports is to place rocks and boulders in front of anything you want to save. They then erode, instead, so must be replenished periodically, especially after floods, when they might be washed away. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On Old London Bridge, they built the stone piers on small artificial islands called starlings made from wooden piles. The downside was that it constricted the flow of the river and made going under the bridge in a boat was a bit like white-water rafting. Alansplodge (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]