Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a22245ef3f12c77b

Jump to content

Talk:Congius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Delirium in topic Untitled


Untitled

[edit]

"It was equal to the larger chous" seems a little odd. Three is not equal to the larger four, nor a pint equal to the larger liter. TheGrappler 07:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

It may make sense. My understanding is that there were two chouses: a smaller and a larger one, the latter equal to the congius. But I agree, it should be made clear somewhere, preferably in an article about the chous. Kpalion 08:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, there was a smaller Chian chous and a larger Athenian one; there were about 8 Chian choes to 7 Athenian choes. I don't know whether the Athenian one is equal to the congius or not, though. --Delirium 11:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

How much is it in liters?

[edit]

The article says the congius is roughly equivalent to 2.5 liters. However, the article Ancient Roman units of measurement says the congius is equal to ca. 3.25 liters. Perhaps the pints used in the reference were not US pints but Imperial pints? 6 Imperial pints = 3.41 l; 6 US pints = 2.84 l. Kpalion 08:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply

  • The source is from London, so probably Imperial pints. BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-24 09:05