Humanities desk
< May 14	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 16 >

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 15

Spanish Regenerationists

Regarding the idea of "regenerationism" in Spain after the loss of Cuba in 1898, I know of Joaquin Costa's idea of the need for an 'iron surgeon' for Spain, but were there other philsophers/intellectuals who took part in regenerationist thought? How popular were they? BVonZeppelin 03:37, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the page you may be looking for, Lieber Graf von Zeppelin, is that on the Generation of 1898. You will find most of the prominent figures of the time mentioned there, some with links to their own separate pages. There is still no article, though, on Costa. They certainly established a dominant position in Spanish intellectual life at the turn of the century, if that is considered an adequate measure of popularity? If I were to pick out those whom I consider to have had lasting influence I would choose Miguel de Unamuno and José Ortega y Gasset, one of the great prophets of the modern age. Clio the Muse 07:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for that :) BVonZeppelin 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

Is the title of Christopher Hitchens's new book God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything a reference to the takbir? Neutrality^talk 04:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously.--Tresckow 06:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Hitchens lumps all religion together as sharing the same troublesome qualities. I actually agree with much of Hitchens' opinions regarding American foreign policy, I'm just not sure if his use of the word "God" rather than "Allah" was done out of ignorance or just to be politically correct.

Hitchens rejects certain characteristics of religion that are mostly characteristic of Islam, and to a much lesser degree, Christianity. He's irritated by proselytization, a practiced frowned upon if not forbidden to Jews, killing in the name of God, which, at least in post-Biblical times is forbidden to Jews and most Christians, the destruction of the holy shrines of other faiths, which is obviously a practice not shared by Jews (witness the prominence of the Dome of the Rock in Israeli controlled Jerusalem, a site which would have been bulldozed decades ago had Jews not shared the view that such an act to be utterly disrespectful to Muslims) etc. With the exception of proselytization, still practiced by many Christian denominations, and in a sense the bedrock upon which Christianity was formed, all the above apply equally to modern Christianity. Lewis 09:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an English text you can encounter an Arabic word like keffiyeh for the simple reason that there is no good English equivalent term for this. But it is affected and somewhat silly to write something like "ripe mishmish is delicious", using an Arabic word, when a perfect English counterpart exists: "ripe apricot is delicious". Allah is simply the word for God in the Arabic language. When French Christians profess their creed, would you say it is "We believe in one Dieu, the Père Almighty". I hope not; the reason for not leaving the word Dieu untranslated has nothing to do with political correctness, but is part of the general rule that, ideally, you do not leave words untranslated. It is equally silly to think that Arab Christians have a strange creed in which they believe in "one Allah, the Ab Almighty". Translating the word Allah is neither a matter of ignorance nor of (religio-)political correctness; leaving it untranslated is. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that it is often people with an anti-Muslim disposition who object to translating "Allah" as "God", which I assume is to avoid being on the same team. Does anyone know if there is a similar reluctance among Islamic partisans to translate "God" as "Allah"? I see that the Arabic wikipedia has a separate article on each ("Allah", "God"), as we do, but those pages seem to be full of backwards squiggles I can't read. :) --TotoBaggins 18:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those backwards squiggles read 'Allah', except the former reads 'Allah (Islam)'. So apparently Allah is the generic term in the Arabic language. Ninebucks 20:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately (in my opinion), many "Islamic partisans" are reluctant not to translate the (Islamic) "God" as "Allah," though I'm not sure this is what you meant. In other words, the most anti-Muslim and the Islamically hypercorrect seem to agree on ghettoizing the God of Abraham, when he is Islam's God, as "Allah." (For example, Abdullah Yusuf Ali's translation of the Qur'an used "God," but the revised version, which is virtually the only one you now see, as it's widely distributed throughout the world by the Saudis, has changed "God" to "Allah.") Wareh 13:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I meant was I wonder if there are pro-Islamic partisans (Osama bin Laden, say) who deliberately do the same obfuscation that some anti-Islamic partisans (Ann Coulter, say) do, and leave the word untranslated when referring to the other side's deity. To put it more succinctly, are there any vendors in Saudi Arabia selling t-shirts affirming that, "[www.cafepress.com/buy/allah/god/-/pv_design_details/pg_2/id_10833638/opt_/fpt_/c_360/ My Allah can whup your God]"? --TotoBaggins 17:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I figured that's what you meant, rather than what I answered. I certainly doubt it, since whereas English-speaking Muslims have used "Allah" enough to introduce it into our speech, Arabic-speaking Christians and Jews simply say "Allah," so that there's never any basis for "that strange foreign word by which they refer to their non-Islamic God." Wareh 18:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

بسم الاب والابن والروح الق.--Kirby♥time 01:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English resistence to the Normans

Was there any English resistence to the Norman invasion after the battle of hastings? Janesimon 05:53, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly was, by Hereward the Wake for example. There was also resistance from the Danish population in the north-east, who never really recognized the authority of the English king and didn't bother recognizing the conquest either. William didn't like that, which led to the Harrowing of the North. Adam Bishop 06:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is some information on post-Hastings English resistance in the page on the Norman Conquest. As Adam points out, the most determined opposition in southern England came from Hereward in the Fens, and only ended in 1071, when he disappeared from the light of history into the mists of legend. There were, however, lesser known figures, no less determined, who included the wonderfully named Eadric the Wild, who launched an attack on Hereford in 1067, serious enough to bring the Conqueror back over from the Continent. In the summer of 1068 King Harold's son, Godwine, landed in the south-west with the support of an Irish fleet, only to be defeated by the local levies at near Avonmouth in Somerset. In the north the arrogance of Robert Comine, whom William had created earl of Northumbria, provoked a rising in Durham in December 1068, in which he and his knights were massacred. This was the beginning of a widespread revolt in the north, spreading south to York. From his refuge in Scotland Edgar Atheling, a grandson of Edmund Ironside of the Saxon royal house, came to England, and was enthusiastically acclaimed as the rightful king. Once again William reacted with his usual ruthless determination, routing the rebel army just outside York. No sooner was this accomplished than Godwine Harroldson was back in the south-west, only to be defeated, yet again. But Edric the Wild and the men of Chester, with the assistance of Bleddyn of Gwynedd, a Welsh prince, managed to seize and destroy Shrewsbury.

The most serious challenge to Norman rule came in the summer of 1069, when a Viking fleet, under the command of Asbjorn, son of King Swein of Denmark, sailed up the Humber. Advancing to York, Asbjorn made contact with Waltheof, a former earl of Northumbria. Together they asked Edgar to return to England. In York the Norman garrison was massacred. William reacted with savage fury, returning north in person, while his half-brother, Robert, attacked the Danish fleet. The 'Harrying of the North' that followed was so severe that its effects were still noted when the Domesday Book was compiled sixteen years later. In a great purge of all established institutions, William removed virtually all of the Saxon clerics from their positions, and replaced all native landowners with his Norman and Breton vassals. The Conquest was now complete. Clio the Muse 08:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Norman conquest article skips over this slightly, maybe it needs expanding or even it's own article. Edgar Ætheling is relegated to a footnote. I don't think there's much to add to what Clio said, with the English army heavily defeated at Hastings and after Stamford Bridge as well, little remained to provide an effective resistance. Potential candidates for the throne had to seek help from Scots, Vikings or whoever, who all had their own ambitions for England, so I don't know how much they count as English resistance. Hereward is probably the most like the popular resistance we might imagine from World War II France for example. Any opposition was ruthlessly crushed and, as Clio has said, Normans given all the positions of power. England's exisiting bureaucracy and system of government allowed an easy transition to power, simply by replacing the people at the top. I have somewhere heard this described as 'cultural genocide'. Cyta 11:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should probably refer to "Saxon" resistance rather than "English." Saxon resistance was scattered. In some areas, even Danelaw areas, assimilation was remarkably fast, and in other areas resistance lasted a long time. Aside from the formal resistance by political units mentioned above, there were varying degrees of cultural and popular resistance. One way we can assess the degree to which a region's population resisted is by looking at the emergence of early Middle English and the language forms. Utgard Loki 17:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I used English in the sense of trying to include Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, all the inhabitants of the Kingdom of England prior to the Norman invasion. I see your point though as many in the former Danelaw area would have considered themselves Danish, as opposed to Anglo-Saxon. Do you have any information on the language changes you mention it would be very interesting to read more about? Cyta 09:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eME is pretty darned interesting. I was thinking more like Cursor Mundi, Peterborough Chronicle, and Ormulum as the classic "really early eME" texts that show very, very different degrees of Frankish influence. I think Ormulum would be the critical text for Danelaw incorporation, though, as "Ormin" is a Danish name ("Dragon man"). Utgard Loki 16:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one (at least): Ancrene Wisse. That one shows probably the other side of the coin, as it shows a highly, highly educated (probably noble) author writing for highly educated (noble, no doubt) ladies early on. It's written in eME, but I would suspect that its French influence might not be wholly typical. Utgard Loki 16:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

British republican movement

I would like some information on the the republican movement in Victorian Britain. Clio the Muse, anyone? Thanks. Martinben 11:08, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Martinben. This question actually links quite nicely to the previous one about Cromwell's statue in Westminster. It tends to be forgotten now that Britain towards the end of the 1830s looked to be on the threshold of sloughing off its own particular version of the ancien regime, much as France had in 1789. That is not to say that the country was on the verge of revolution, well at least not on the French model. Rather, for the emerging middle-classes, the ancient institutions, including the monarchy, appeared less and less relevant, representing the arcane, the out-moded and the wasteful. The two monarchs who preceeded Victoria, her uncles, George IV and William IV, were representative of an institution that was out of touch with the times, one that gave every appearance of terminal historical decay. Indeed, William IV's funeral cortege in 1837 had even been pelted with excrement. Victoria came at just the right time: young, personable and, above all, the very model of a modern middle-class wife. Her marriage to Prince Albert, the steady growth of her family, her sobriety and sense of duty, all corresponded to contemporary notions of what was acceptable and proper. But in 1861 the whole happy facade collapsed. Albert died, and Victoria took on forms of mourning almost gothic in their intensity. Virtually overnight the vivacious young women became the dowdy dowger, disappearing almost completely from the public eye. By amazing coincidence, the year of Albert's death also saw the publication of Charles Dicken's novel, Great Expectations. Once again reality mirrored fiction, as Victoria grew into her own version of Miss Havesham, sitting among the ruins of the royal spectacle. To make matters even worse, as Victoria withdrew from view, the vacant spot was occupied by her eldest son, the disreputable Bertie

Victoria's abdication from public duty and sober middle-class values revived earlier unfavourable notions of the monarchy, thus breathing fresh life into the republican movement. Soon, men like Charles Bradlaugh, the first declared athieist to take a seat in Parliament, and Sir Charles Dilke were attracting a public following for their anti-monarchist views. In 1871, Bradlaugh wrote The Impeachment of the House of Brunswick, one of the most influential of the nineteenth century republican tracts. In it he reminded readers of Victoria's relatives in Hanover, who "in their own land...vegetate and wither unnoticed; here we pay them highly to marry and perpetuate a pauper prince race." In Prince George he brought back to the public mind the misdemeanours of the past royals to discredit the present still further. These criticisms, moreover, came at a time when the old aristocratic England was giving way to the growing economic power of the new middle-classes, expressed in the success of the Anti-Corn Law League and the Second Reform Act, which greatly extended the Parliamentary franchise. Sir Charles Dilke recognised that a republc would only come in England if it was desired by the middle-classes. English republicanism was free of the great flights of principle and ideology that marked its Continental counterparts; but it was no less potent for all that. For many the monarchy was 'no longer value for money', arguably the most killing accusation in all of English politics, which found full expression in Dilke's pamphlet, Cost of the Crown. The radical campaigner, Annie Besant, even argued, after Victoria became Empress of India in 1877, that as Parliament could now confer titles on the monarch, Parliament was also in a position to create a republic if it so wished.

In the end Victoria did manage to re-engage with the people, and the republican impetus failed. But, even so, it gave birth to the very modern notion that the monarchy was an institution like any other, not sacred and not apart, but subject to public and Parliamentary scrutiny. Adulation of the monarchy is now no longer unconditional, but subject, as Dilke once recognised, to the vagaries of public taste. Clio the Muse 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just knew you would not let me down, lovely lady. Thanks. Martinben 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Writing a poem

I'm writing a poem. Could anyone please suggest a few lines for me? 195.194.74.154 11:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wandered lonely as a cloud,

Adrift through rooms and crowded halls

When all at once I blew one loud;

A mighty wind that shook the walls -

Its pungent scent made all the greater,

Standing in this elevator

Think outside the box 12:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah di'nae smoke tae be cool

Ah di'nae smoke tae play thi fool

Ah di'nae smoke tae escape, thi dreaded, boring landscape

Ah di'nae smoke cause em shy

Ah jist smoke tae git high

Perry-mankster 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never saw a purple cow;

I never hope to see one;

but I can tell you anyhow;

I'd rather see than be one!

See also Rhyming recipe for another sublime poem. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here I sit, all lonely hearted...Edison 14:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off-topic, I know, but here's my favourite limerick of all time (apart from one that's way too rude to post):

There was a young lady from Ryde

Who ate a sour apple and died

The apple fermented

Inside the lamented

And made cider inside her insides

217.155.195.19 15:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A shrimp who sought his lady shrimp

Could catch no glimpse

Not even a glimp.

At times, translucence

Is rather a nuisance.

-- Ogden Nash (not TotoBaggins 18:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

There once was a man from Nantucket? Ninebucks 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The one who kept all his cash in a bucket or the other one? jnestorius^(talk) 22:30, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

honest,officer

had I known my health stood in jeprody, I would never have lit one 12:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Adam

Had 'em

Ogden Nash --Charlene 00:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politics question re: Australia + Asia

I was just curious as to people's opinions on the topic of: Does Australia have an "identity crisis" regarding Asia? It was something which was brought up at dinner tonight I was left pondering. 137.166.4.130 11:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC) Susie[reply]

I'm afraid that the function of the Ref Desks is not for us to offer our opinions, however, it'd be great if some of our contributors could point you at articles and websites that might help inform you. --Dweller 12:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. The OP may indeed be asking a question regarding an issue that goes beyond his/her individual ponderings, but an issue of interest among Australians themselves. I'm not Australian so I'm not sure for sure, but if it's the latter, I definitely think it's worthy of a response. Indeed I'm rather curious as to what the OP means when s/he speaks of Australia having such an identity crisis. Lewis 12:50, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller did not say that the question is not worthy of a response, but only that such responses should not be just the respondents' personal opinions, but instead refer to sources that discuss the issue. I concur. --Lambiam ^Talk 13:15, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not 100% related, but a Google search for Australia and Asia together gave me this, which serves as a bit of a starting point to how I understand it: Australia is a country in a bit of an odd position, because its culture is strongly "Western" (ie. linked to Britain and the US), but its geography puts it close to Asia, and far from both the Americas and Europe. As a result, we have strong economic and political ties to many Asian countries, particularly those in South-East Asia. In terms of an "identity crisis", I wouldn't go so far as to call it that, but certainly in the 1990s Australia was probably even more closely connected with Asia than it is now, to the extent that in some contexts it was described as being part of Asia (or at least some economic division such as APEC). Frankly we were lucky to not be too heavily affected by the 1997 East Asian financial crisis, and I think that as a result we took some steps to be less closely associated (in terms of how other countries see us) with Asia since then.

As a massive, huge disclaimer, I will point out that my information comes more from, for example, The Games and a scene where people were calling to ask whether the Sydney Olympics were cancelled due to the Asian crisis than from any economics knowledge or references. Confusing Manifestation 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian revolution

I am tring to discover the the root causes of the Iranian revolution of 1979. What I need to know is how deep these were in Iranian history? Gordon Nash 14:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read Iranian Revolution? Skarioffszky 16:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have, thank you. What I was wondering was were the Revolution's roots, political and religious, even deeper than those described there? Gordon Nash 18:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discontent with the pro-Western regime of the Shah, frustration at the state of the economy, and, more generally, a population pyramid that was scewed towards adolescents. Societies with a plurality of adolescents and young adults are prone to revolution; compare with France and modern-day Africa. Ninebucks 20:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who commits gun crimes?

What percentage of gun crimes are committed by people living under the poverty line? Is there some study that has been done on this?

--Shadarian 14:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly dated, but Short, "Poverty, Ethnicity, and Violent Crime," 1997, Westview Press was quite good (ISBN 0813320143) Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Less dated is the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics. See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/ageracesex.htm - it shows that statistically black men between the age of 18-24 dominate homicide rates. You can poke around the various statistics and find a lot of interesting things. Did you know that violent crime has been going down quickly the last few years? --Kainaw ^(talk) 14:39, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The truly sad thing is that the in the charts on Kainaw's referance the tables for blacks ate scaled almost 10 times greater than whites, so the problem is far greater that the pictures show if you don't read the scales. --Czmtzc 15:33, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course "homicides" are not necessarily indicative of "gun crimes." Those will refer simply to successful murder attempts, where gun crimes would include armed robbery, suicide, attempted murder, and armed assault. Poverty, though, is one of the gravest risk factors for crime, but as perpetrator and victim. Utgard Loki 17:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide isn't criminalized in most juridictions any more, and those statistics, while useful, don't actually address poverty as much as they do race. I'd like to see some statistics on poverty alone irrespective of race. --Charlene 00:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brother-in-law

A brother-in-law is, according to this wikipedia:

sister's husband
spouse's brother
spouse's sister's husband

My English-German dictionary confirms only the upper two, mentioning there is no special term for the third (instead: "husband of one's sister-in-law").

If, however, the definition given here is correct, what about:

sibling's spouse's brother? --KnightMove 17:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am a native English speaker and I would call him my sister-in-law's brother. As for the "spouse's sister's husband", I would refer to him as my husband's brother-in-law. Bielle 18:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia seems correct on this one. Bielle's suggestion seems to imply that a brother and sister are married to each other. Lewis 04:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand that, Lewis. My sibling is, say, George. His wife is Mary. Mary's brother is Fred. Mary is my sister-in-law, and Fred is my sister-in-law's brother. I can't see that Mary and Fred seem married to each other by referring to him as such. I would never refer to Fred as my brother-in-law, and I tend to agree with Bielle on this. JackofOz 11:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case anyone is interested, and judging by KnightMove's reference to an English-German dictionary, this question might have come up because the German language actually does have a word for this secondary affinity. Der Schwippschwager can be the brother of your sibling's spouse, or the husband of your spouse's sister. Likewise, die Schwippschwägerin can be the sister of your sibling's spouse, or the wife of your spouse's brother. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it seems the article is wrong and "spouse's sister`s husband" needs to be removed?! But in this case, some "brothers in law" are to be corrected, for example Eric von Rosen and Hermann Göring. --KnightMove 19:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, a spouse's sister`s husband is indeed a "brother-in-law". I do not think there is any special term for the sibling's spouse's brother.--Pharos 21:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loss of Normandy

How significant was King John's loss of Normandy in 1204? Janesimon 18:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was significant enough for it to become a common homework essay question when covering King John. --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Wikipedia page on John hardly touches on his Continental affairs, and not at all on the implications of the loss of Normandy in 1204 for both the English crown and the evolving concept of English nationhood.

Before 1204 England had been part, and not even the most important part, of a Continental empire, stretching all the way from the Scottish borders to the Pyrenees. The Kings of England, moreover, from 1066 onwards, had considered themselves, first and foremost, as Dukes of Normandy. The status of England is illustrated by William the Conquerer's division of his lands before his death: his eldest son, Robert Curthose, received Normandy, England going to his second son, William Rufus. Although reunited by Henry I after the Battle of Tinchebrai in 1106, England continued as an appendage, a status confirmed by the emergence of the Angevin Empire. England's kings were French in language, culture and attitude, rarely remaining on the 'offshore island' for any lengthy period of time.

The loss of almost all of the French territories, including Normandy, to Philip Augustus in 1203-4 had an impact on several crucial fronts, domestic, political and legal. John became obsessed with the recovery of Normandy, raising funds for a campaign against Philip in a variety of highly dubious ways. As well as imposing heavy taxes, he placed a cash value on justice. Massive finacial 'contributions' were extorted from the nobility merely to secure the king's goodwill. This continued for some ten years until John began his war, only to loss all at the Battle of Bouvines in July 1214. The undercurrent of resentment over years of royal mismanagement was now openly and forcefully expressed by John's barons, who compelled him to sign Magna Carta, limiting royal demands for money, ending arbitrary imprisonment and the general prostitution of justice. Notions of fairness in justice, and the importance of the rule of law, thus became defining concepts in the English constitution. If it had not been for John's actions after the loss of Normandy it is quite possible that this document would never have been conceived.

The other important effect of Bouvines and the loss of Normandy was the end of the 'international aristocracy.' The nobility had to choose one side or the other: they could hold land in England, or they could hold land in Normandy; they could no longer hold land in both. Although it was slow to develop this had the effect of moving towards the creation of a distinctive English identity. Indeed, during the reign of John's son, Henry III, matters had gone so far that he was to find himself under attack for surrounding himself with non-English advisors. Some Continental lands were retained in Gascony, in thr far south-west of France, but these were far less important than England itself, and the monarchs were now to be resident rulers. The expansionist impulse, moreover, was to be turned inwards for some time to come, moving towards the creation of a new British Imperium, in both its good and its bad forms. Clio the Muse

We have a relevant article on Angevin Empire --Dweller 09:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Constantinople facts

Could i possibly enquire to some facts which escaped the article about the Fall of Constantinople. i would like to know what was the composition of the Byzantine force cavalty/infantry wise. I would also like to know the same of the Ottoman force. also the equipment and specifics of troop types of the both armies. Thank You, Andrew Milne 15 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.108.215.40 (talk) 20:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello, Andrew. When the final assault on Constantinople began in May 1453 it is no longer meaningful to talk about the composition of the two armies in the terms you have, so great was the disparity between them. The forces of Constantine XI were only able to defend; so any cavalry units present were never to operate as such, and you will understand why in just a moment. The Sultan, Mehmet II, had mustered every regiment at his disposal, as well as recruiting large numbers of auxiliaries and mercenaries, exempting only those on frontier duty, and the garrisons of the larger towns. It is not possible to give exact numbers, though, according to the Greek sources, the Turkish army was 400,000 strong, almost certainly a gross overestimate. The Turkish sources give a much more plausible figure of 80,000 regular troops, and up to 20,000 irregulars, or bashi-bazooks, as they were known. The latter force included 12,000 men of the elite Janissary Corps (J. J. Norwich, Byzantium: the Decline and Fall, 1991 p. 418). Constantine had sent out appeals to the Christian powers of the west. In desperation, he also ordered that all able-bodied men in the city be mobilisied, including all of the monks and clerics. But in the end all he had to defend fourteen miles of wall was 4,983 Greeks and less than 2,000 foreigners-an army of under 7,000 men against 100,000 Turks. He told his secretary, the historian George Sphrantzes, that on no account must these figures be revealed, adding that only God could save the city now. (Norwich, p. 422) Constantinople fell on 'Black Tuesday', 29 May 1453. Clio the Muse 07:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bashi Bazook" (unsure of spelling) is a favoured faux-expletive of Captain Haddock in the English translations of the Tintin stories. I know that his "billions of blue blistering barnacles" is a translation of a similarly alliterative "milliards" French version. Does he use "Bashi Bazook" in the original French text? --Dweller 11:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Liste des insultes du capitaine Haddock he uses bachi-bouzouk in French. If I'm not mistaken the English version has bashi-bazouks, which is also how the English Wikipedia spells it. In the Turkish editions Kaptan Haddok says başıbozuk, which, as an insult, is about as funny as in English calling someone an "irregular soldier". --Lambiam ^Talk 23:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Fall of Constantinople. The image (painted 1499) which illustrates the article implies that the city was defended by two soldiers armed with rocks, while the attackers were 10 in nuumber, armed with spears. Contributing to the defeat may be the fact that the walls appear to be only about one meter tall. Perhaps the artist was perspective-challenged.Edison 17:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Starting a company

If I start a company (in the UK or US), will my personal credit rating be reflected in the credit rating of the company? Is the personal credit rating of some director relevant for the credit rating of the company? 217.95.9.251 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the type of company. Are you considering a sole-ownership, where the owner is the company? Are you considering an LLC or SCORP where the business is merely a legal protection against lawsuits? Are you considering a full corporation with multiple investors? --Kainaw ^(talk) 22:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would definitely not be sole-ownership. I was thinking on a LLC, S-CORP or C-CORP. (I am still doing some research of what form is best suited). 217.95.9.251 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., both an LLC and an S-CORP are linked to the individual. I believe the maximum number of owners is five. So, a bad credit rating of any individual would correlate to a poor credit rating for the company. For a C-CORP, there can be many owners who have nothing to do with the company other than provide investment. I know, it is possible to have an S-CORP where all owners are hands-off investors, but it is rare that any investor will be dumb enough to do that with an S-CORP because the profits/losses of the company go straight into your taxes. In the end, if your credit rating is so bad that you cannot get a loan for anything, you will have extreme difficulty in getting a loan for a company you own. To put it another way, I helped two men put together an S-CORP when I was building a theater for them. One of them had tax issues in the past. Before the bank would loan them money to start their theater company, the back taxes had to be paid and a the bank required a letter from the IRS stating that there were no other problems. Had they started a C-CORP, that would not be an issue as the startup funding would have come from stock sales, not a business loan. --Kainaw ^(talk) 00:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your answer 217.95.65.120 12:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@ 217.95.65.120: The terms applied to Wikipedia "articles" apply equally to Reference Desk answers. (See e.g., Wikipedia:General_disclaimer, Wikipedia:Legal_disclaimer, User:Dreftymac/Docs/RefDeskDisclaimer, etc.) dr.ef.tymac 15:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

January 1st, 0 BCE

What day of the week did January 1st, 0 BCE land on? Jamesino 23:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was no 0 BCE. Corvus cornix 23:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you pretend year 0 was the year before 1AD, that would make 1st of January a Thursday. That's using the modern perpetual calendar, so really has no meaning to the time back then.Vespine 00:14, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Year zero for why there is no Year 0 ~~in the Gregorian Calendar~~. JackofOz 00:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Gregorian calendar is irrelevant; in the period in question the Julian Calendar was in use. However, it was still new, and they hadn't gotten the leap years right yet, and there is some uncertainty as to exactly when they did. If the 1999 interpretation given at that link is correct, then the year 1 AD (1 CE, or 754 AUC to the Romans) already conformed to the Julian calendar of later centuries, so January 1, 1 AD, was a Saturday, as you can confirm by a Julian perpetual calendar (I used the one in the World Almanac) or by the command "cal 1 1" on UNIX or Linux. But the preceding year, 1 BC (1 BCE or 753 AUC) was not a leap year, so January 1 that year was a Friday, not a Thursday. --Anonymous, May 16, 2007 AD (XVII. KAL. IVN. MMDCCLX A.V.C.), 05:01 (UTC).

Except of course that they used different names for the days of the week back then.

That's a little like saying that lundi (French) does not mean the same thing as Monday (English). JackofOz 23:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]