Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 July 9
| Humanities desk | ||
|---|---|---|
| < July 8 | << Jun | July | Aug >> | July 10 > |
| 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. |
July 9
[edit]Napoleonic era French infantry company
[edit]According to this site a French infantry company consisted of 121 privates. I can perfectly imagine how that could work with a formation of 40 files by 3 ranks (though I do not know how 8 corporals would fit in there). See also the illustration on the site where the corporals are aligned together with the privates, though it seems the result is there are only 118 privates depicted there. But with 121 privates who was that one odd guy? How much is that illustation with 118 correct? --Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
- That number seems rather odd. In any case, even if it were correct, units would very rarely be at full strength anyway, so it seems rather moot. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:43, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the lines in the diagram which is on top of the page 3 of the site you linked to, there are actually (11*9) + (10*3) people in the ranks, which is 129. Remove the 8 corporals and that makes 121 privates. I don't see a problem. --Lgriot (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Lgriot: On this image I see 42*3 or 126 (118 privates, 8 corporals). Where did you get your numbers? But yes, if it had been 43*3, then your numbers perfectly fit, and the image must have an error (one file omitted). Or hasn't it? Who were then those 3 guys left?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- Oh! Embarrassing, I miscounted the number on the second set of 3 rows (from the left), I had counted 11 men on each row for that one. Then you are right, 3 men are missing in this formation. --Lgriot (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Lgriot: On this image I see 42*3 or 126 (118 privates, 8 corporals). Where did you get your numbers? But yes, if it had been 43*3, then your numbers perfectly fit, and the image must have an error (one file omitted). Or hasn't it? Who were then those 3 guys left?--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Clarityfiend: Yes, if a formation had been on the battlefield and sustained losses, but a new fresh one had had to follow the regulations. So if they said 121, at least some companies must have had such a number.--Lüboslóv Yęzýkin (talk) 10:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you look at the lines in the diagram which is on top of the page 3 of the site you linked to, there are actually (11*9) + (10*3) people in the ranks, which is 129. Remove the 8 corporals and that makes 121 privates. I don't see a problem. --Lgriot (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
"Plaintiff was in the placebo group" defense
[edit]What percentage of lawsuits brought by test subjects against the experimenter in double-blind trials are dismissed because the plaintiffs turn out to have been in the control group? NeonMerlin 22:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)