Humanities desk
< March 17	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 19 >

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.

March 18

Did Horace translate the Iliad or Odyssey

Did Horace translate part or all of Homer's works, the Iliad or the Odyssey, to Latin? If so, how much of it? Have these translation survived to our times? If not, who has translated Homer's epics to Latin, and/or what works of art, especially poetry, has Horace translated? Our articles don't seem to mention any of this.

I'm asking because Devecseri Gábor seems to have considered Horace (as well as Babits Mihály) his master and role model in poetry and translation. I've had the impression that this is because Horace was a translator, as opposed to merely a poet who has borrowed a lot of good ideas and style from ancient Greek poetry, but maybe I've misunderstood something. – b_jonas 07:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Educated Romans read Homer in the original Greek, so I'm not sure there was great demand for a written literary translation into Latin. There was the Ilias Latina, which was kind of "downmarket" (not a full translation, and not very literary). AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Attius Labeo was renowned for the badness of his translations of Homer, so there was clearly a market. Paul B (talk) 10:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Livius Andronicus (c. 284 – c. 204 BC) was possibly the first who translated the Odyssey into Latin, but his translation has not survived. There have been many Latin translations of Homer over the centuries, but the oldest surviving seems to be by Leontius Pilatus (died 1366): [1] - Lindert (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, thanks. I guess I'll have to re-read Devecseri to see what he actually says about this. – b_jonas 11:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have cross-posted this question to Mythology Stack Exchange. – b_jonas 22:04, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Were the US and Britain ever equally powerful?

According to common knowledge, the United Kingdom was the dominant world power for much of the 19th Century, while the United States held that position for much of the 20th Century. In the views of historians, was there ever a time when the two countries were roughly equal in global power? And more generally, have any historians or political scientists studied the application of the Intermediate value theorem to international relations?--131.202.169.16 (talk) 11:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Composite Index of National Capability projected back in time[2] gives 1896–97 as the year when US and UK were roughly equal in power. I am not aware of any precise historical studies on this. National power falls more in the domain of Political Science than History. However, historians do use Suez Crisis as an example of the decline in UK's status as a world power. Intermediate Value theorem is used in Economics and is found in domains intersecting both Political Science and Economics. Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy for instance uses the intermediate value theorem in its dynamic model of democratization. Amitrochates (talk) 12:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the British prominence in the 19th century was based on the fact it had the most powerful navy in the world. This changed first when Germany built up a concurrent Navy in the last couple of decades of the century (although it proved not to be so formidable when tested in battle during World War I), and the significant drain on Britain's resources caused by World War I. That conflict is usually seen as the time when the balance of power tipped over, with the US entering the war in 1917, shortly before the final successful push against Germany, and the prominent US role in the settlements that followed the war. But, to make things more complicated, the US soon fell back into an isolationist policy, then was more badly hit than Europe by the Great Depression, so it did not truly become the dominant world power until it began to turn over the tide of World War II, some time around 1943-1944. --Xuxl (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Xuxl's answer is correct. While the United States had the world's largest economy by the late 1890s, it did not prioritize military power or empire to nearly the same extent as Britain, so it remained a second-tier military power. (It beat Spain in the Spanish-American War, but Spain was very much lower second tier by then.) The United States showed its potential to be a dominant military power in World War I and was probably seen as Britain's equal in 1918, but the United States dismantled much of its military capacity over the next couple of years, leaving Britain the leading military power through the 1920s and early 30s. In the mid-1930s, Germany's rapid militarization may have made it the leading military power, with the United States maybe in third or fourth place behind Britain and perhaps France. Meanwhile, Japan's militarization made it a rival of the United States until the Roosevelt administration began seriously mobilizing around 1940. With military mobilization in the United States accelerating rapidly in 1942, it probably equalled and surpassed Britain as a military power (permanently) at some point during that year or early in 1943. Marco polo (talk) 15:14, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Amitrochates that any cross-over point would likely be in the 1890s, when the U.S. was consolidating its massive industrial/economic strength and its respectable naval strength, while the U.K.'s share of the world's total industry and navies was consistently going down. The U.S. asserted itself in the Spanish-American War, and a number of European countries upgraded their diplomatic representation in the U.S. from "missions" to full embassies. However, the U.S.'s international power was still somewhat potential, since it confined itself to a limited role (staying out of direct involvement with Africa except Liberia, staying out of direct involvement with Asia except the Philippines, and staying out of direct involvement with Europe altogether). For extended discussion, you can see The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers by Paul Kennedy... AnonMoos (talk) 15:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of military power, in 1914 the US Army (including reserves) was rather smaller than the Bulgarian army.[3] At sea in 1914, the Royal Navy had 38 Dreadnought battleships and battlecruisers,[4] whereas the US Navy had 10.[5] The US Navy didn't exceed the Royal Navy until 1944 if I recall correctly - I can't find a reference for that at present. Alansplodge (talk) 13:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An anecdotal ref (I was a year out): ...one frosty spring morning in 1943 on the North Atlantic, a division of frisky new American destroyers raced up to an embattled westbound convoy south of Iceland, to take over escort duties from a squadron of of British warships. Washington had just announced that the US fleet was now the largest in the world, and the commander of the lead destroyer flashed a message to his English counterpart: Good morning! How's the world's second largest navy?” Over the gray waters from His Majesty's proud line of storm-beaten ships came the reply: “Fine. How's the world's second best?". [6] Alansplodge (talk) 16:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, if two lines cross, they cross at a point, so the answer is yes, assuming one thinks Britain was once more powerful and the US was later more powerful. Defining that point is a matter of the opinion of historians, unless you want to go be relatively objective numbers, like GDP in hard money. μηδείς (talk) 17:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this amateur historian's opinion, the point was August 6, 1945, at 8:15:44.4 am, Hiroshima time. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

British historian Peter Clarke considers that the tipping point was the Tehran Conference in December 1943, when Churchill didn't get his way and "realised for the first time what a very small country this is". [7] Alansplodge (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edward VIII as privy council member

I know that Edward VIII was made a member of the privy council in 1920, before his accession. After his abdication was he ever reinstated? Sotakeit (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's possible to confirm this by searching our List of Privy Counsellors (1936–52) and List of Privy Counsellors (1952–present) using the search term "Edward". None of the Edwards in those lists is the Duke of Windsor, as Edward was styled after his abdication. Marco polo (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Kipjak

Was there ever a specific entity known as the "Empire of Kipjak", and if so, what do we call it today? I'm finding a bunch of late 18th-century references to it; my first encounter with the term was on the final page of a book by John Brown of Haddington, who records that in AD 1210, "Jenghiz Kan begins his wars ; and, within 50 years, he and his ſons erect the three empires of Iran, China, and Kipjak." Page 25 of Joseph Priestley's A Description of a New Chart of History says of this place that "THIS country, which comprehends Aſtrakan, Caſan, and the north-weſt parts of Tartary, was conquered by Jugi [is this Jochi?] the ſon of Jenghiſkhan, who died in 1226, ſix months before his father. When it recovered its independency is not known. In 1553 the Ruſſians [not "Ruffians!"] conquered the whole country." So apparently it's somewhere in southwestern Siberia and far eastern European Russia, but today do we have a name for this region? Nyttend (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This was the empire usually known as the khanate of the Golden Horde. Marco polo (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Kipchaks and Cumania. — Kpalion^(talk) 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The Golden Horde didn't come to mind (even though it should have), and I've never heard the term "Kipchak" before. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 18 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've just created a redirect to Kipchak at Kipjak. — Kpalion^(talk) 12:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This word has a lot of alternate spellings, the one I am used to seeing, Kpalion, is wikt:Qipchak, the entry for which shows alternatives. μηδείς (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there should be a redirect for all of them. — Kpalion^(talk) 21:57, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]