Humanities desk
< December 10	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 12 >

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.

December 11[edit]

Horses in Michael Clayton[edit]

I just watched Michael Clayton (film) and I am confused about the part with the horses. One minute Michael is talking to some rich guy who had just hit a person with a car and the next he is racing his own car down a country road only to see some horses. He just stands there staring at the three horses. Was that supposed to be symbolic of him apologizing to all of the farm people that the company U-North had hurt? --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:50, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My hazy memory is that he just happened to see the horses, not that he was specifically going to go look at them. He saw some horses, he was feeling low and irritated with the rich guy (and maybe guilty), and he got out to look at them. And coincidentally that weird choice by him happened to save his life. That's how I remember it, anyhow. Not that the horses were meant to be deeply symbolic of his work with the farm people — more that he was in awe of them and feeling adrift. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no significance. It is simply good Videography. schyler (talk) 01:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Military Hardware in Use by the Guomindang in late 1930s[edit]

I'm looking for details of any military hardware that the Guomindang used when fighting the Japanese specifically in the period shortly before WW2, and more specifically field guns and anti-tank guns. Can anyone help out? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 15:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking that I've got the right people the National Revolutionary Army? - they were called the Koumingtang when I went to school. Our article on the NRA says "Some divisions were equipped with 37 mm PaK 35/36 anti-tank guns, and/or mortars from Oerlikon, Madsen, and Solothurn. Each infantry division had 6 French Brandt 81 mm mortars and 6 Solothurn 20 mm autocannons. Some independent brigades and artillery regiments were equipped with Bofors 72 mm L/14, or Krupp 72 mm L/29 mountain guns and there were 24 Rheinmetall 150 mm L/32 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1934) and 24 Krupp 150 mm L/30 sFH 18 howitzers (bought in 1936)". The Rheinmetall and Krupp sFH 18 howitzers seem to be the same gun from a different factory. Does this help? Alansplodge (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It does indeed help, thanks. I am especially curious about the German guns in their armoury. Thanks a lot. I didn't check the article, because, in all honesty I did not expect this information to even be there. Cheers. --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 19:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See also Sino-German cooperation (1911–1941), and the wikilinks from that article. User:Miborovsky is (was) our resident expert on the topic, but you may need to reach him by email these days. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 23:21, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's incredibly fascinating. I knew Germany had played a role in the modernisation of China in many respects, but I never knew it extended as late as that. Thanks! Fascinating read! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 23:42, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still trying to track down the weapons listed. I'm fairly sure that the Solothurn Autocannon must be the Solothurn S-18/100. I'm a bit suspicious of the 72mm mountain guns (the only mentions on Google link to this article); I think it's actually this[1] weapon. We have an article on the Japanese copy - Type 41 75 mm Mountain Gun. Have you seen the WP article German-trained divisions in the National Revolutionary Army? Alansplodge (talk) 00:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another snippet - this forum[2] says that "Bofors 75 mm Mountain Guns. This was a Krupp design taken over by Bofors in 1919 and later improved.... In 1928 Turkey bought 184 pcs of the 75 mm L/20 followed in 1932 by an order for 48 more. Turkey could however not pay for all and at least 72 of these guns were sold to China where som were captured by the Japanese." Alansplodge (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Thanks! All of this is really useful for the little project I am working on. Thanks a lot! --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 16:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kumari Fulbright details?[edit]

I'm having trouble finding details. It says the former beauty pageant winner "kidnapped, bound and tortured" her ex-boyfriend. Why?? Who tortures someone? And, like, how? She's only getting like 2 years and 6 years of probation or something, so it must not have been some heinous, eviscerating torture. What happened? Thanks. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 18:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google is your friend (not that I think much of the Daily Mail):http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1337474/Kumari-Fulbright-jailed-having-ex-boyfriend-kidnapped-tortured.html.

It looks like plea-bargaining to me. And before anyone asks, not worth a Wikipedia article IMO. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

East Polynesian contact with mainland Australia[edit]

I'm thinking about writing an article on the initial settlement of New Zealand from East Polynesia about 1280 CE. The settlers spread from NZ to Raoul Island and from there to Norfolk Island. I'm trying to track down a reference for a brief mention in the 2009 The New Oxford History of New Zealand, p 27, which says "Norfolk Island settlers may have continued westward. Lord Howe Island was not discovered, despite its high visibility, but adzes of East Polynesian type have been recovered from the coast of New South Wales". The ref given by the New Oxford covers the lack of Polynesian artefacts on Lord Howe but not the adzes from NSW.

I've found Evidence of Polynesian Culture in Australia and Norfolk Island, but the age of the article and its lack of any scientific dating of the finds makes it unsuitable for a Wikipedia ref.

Can anyone point me to a more authoritative and up to date account of such adze finds? This will only be one line in the article I write, and can be left out if no such account is available.-gadfium 19:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://pacificarchaeology.org/index.php/journal may have something useful, or at least someone there may be able to provide a more useful link. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 20:03, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched SCOPUS without success. Perhaps I am not using the right keywords.-gadfium 18:34, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus[edit]

Why did the Spanish monarchs believe Columbus when he said that Earth was round? Didn't just about everyone during the Middle Ages think that Earth was flat? --J4\/4 <talk> 20:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The belief that people in the Middle ages thought the Earth was flat is largely a myth, described at Myth of the Flat Earth. - Jarry1250 ^{[Who? Discuss.]} 20:46, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) No. See the very first entry in our List of common misconceptions. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you read that article, you will see that it is a misconception that Columbus argued the Earth was its present shape and diameter. Instead, he was making an argument that he will "wrap around" to the right edge when he sails past the left edge, which he thought due to an analysis of the world's source code: the bible. He also played a lot of games where that happens. 82.234.207.120 (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

only people who live where you can't see the horizon (forests, hills) ever think the earth is flat. People living where the earth is "flattish", like the ocean or a desert, can clearly see objects rise up into view as they come over the horizon, which can only mean the earth is curved. Gzuckier (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. If I didn't know the earth was round and was looking out to sea as the sun rises over the horizon, just from looking at that I wouldn't know for sure the earth wasn't flat. In what way would the horizon look different if the earth was in fact flat? 82.44.55.25 (talk) 14:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If as you were looking out to sea a tall sailing ship were to approach you from beyond the horizon, the first thing you would see would be the tops of its sails, then the rest of the sails, then the deck, and finally its bottom hull and wake. And the reverse if it were going away from you. Ancients mariners may have observed that no matter where they were in the sea, the surface of the sea fell away from them toward the horizon, which would happen if the Earth were a globe and not a flat plane. WikiDao ☯ (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, thanks :) 82.44.55.25 (talk) 18:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone knew the earth was round. In fact scientists had correctly calculated the size of the Earth. What Columbus was arguing was that the earth was much smaller than most scientists believed it was, and therefore it was possible to sail from Europe to what we would now call Japan. (Back then Europeans lumped to all kinds of different people together as "Indians") APL (talk) 00:06, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To address a related legend, His crew was threatening to mutiny, but not because they were scared of falling off the edge of the world. They were afraid that columbus was wrong about how small the world was, and that they would not have nearlly enough food to make it to Japan.

The crew was right, of course. If America didn't exist they would have all starved to death in the middle of nowhere.

It seems to me that Columbus was wrong about everything important. He just got really lucky.APL (talk) 00:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: As a Christian, Columbus may have been familiar with Isaiah 40:22 where The Earth is described with the Hebrew word chug which means "inscribed in a circle." schyler (talk) 01:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

N.B.: A circle is not a sphere. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on what APL said, it wasn't that Columbus was right and everyone else was wrong. The opposite was true. The prevailing scientific wisdom was that there was the world was about as big as it actually is, and that therefore it would take a very long time to get from Europe to Asia by sailing west. Columbus mistakenly believed that East Asia was a lot closer to Europe than it was. The right question to ask is how Columbus managed to convince Ferdinand and Isabella to back his voyage when all of the leading minds of his day knew Columbus's premise -- that he could get to Asia in a reasonable time by sailing west -- was wrong. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Columbus wasn't even the first European to reach the Americas - (see Leif Ericson). History gives him far too much credit. --Tango (talk) 02:57, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Europeans weren't even the first people to reach the Americas - History gives them too much credit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't dismiss the importance of the Age of Discovery. The Europeans travelled to Asia, North and South America, Australia and Antarctica and returned to tell the tale and not the other way around (Discovery de facto means more than to be the first to go somewhere, it also means to go there, return and spread the news). For good and ill the European explorers discovered and connected the whole world leading to the first true Globalization (as in connecting the whole globe). Unless you truly want to believe the writings of Gavin Menzies. Flamarande (talk) 17:18, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I can believe that learned Europeans of the time knew the size of the Earth pretty accurately. But what basis did they have for estimating how large the Eurasian landmass is? Did they have access to (reliably translated) longitude measurements made in Japan or China? 84.239.160.59 (talk) 08:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't have longitude measurements (in fact, given the technology at the time, measuring longitude was totally impossible). What they had was rough distance-and-bearing measurements of the caravan routes between China and Europe, which could be used to compute the distance to China. Columbus had a specific interpretation of those measurements that made China about 30% further away than the consensus distance, which combined with his smaller-than-consensus value for the circumference of the Earth to give a reasonable sailing voyage between Europe and China. --Carnildo (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@mwalcoff I wouldn't be surprised if there were political reasons for supporting the voyage. Or, it could be as simple as using Columbus for a temporary "look, we support exploration/trade" point among some noble group, expecting he'd be forgotten in due time. Actually discovering new lands was a pleasant bonus. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:23, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all leading minds thought that the voyage was impossible. Paolo_dal_Pozzo_Toscanelli, whom Columbus knew, was of the opinion that such enterprise was not only possible but that it would also yield a high profit to its discoverer. But that was not the only motivating information Columbus had access to. If you calculate distances, as Columbus did, using the Italian mile (1,238 meters) instead of the Arabic mile (1,830 m) you get a much shorter West route to Asia. Adding to this the fact that Spain was eager to achieve a competitive advantage against other European countries after the tour-de-force of the Reconquista, believing the logic of Columbus sounds unsurprising. Trustinchaos (talk) 03:49, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no. If you calculate the distances, the units of measurement are irrelevant. If you use the result of someone else's calculation and misinterpret the units, then you get different (and in this case wrong) distances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yes, you are absolutely right here. We cannot call that calculating. Columbus didn't calculate the distances himself, just read the maps using the Italian miles. Trustinchaos (talk) 13:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are unsubstantiated but (in some cases) plausible suggestions that Columbus may have heard mariners' stories of lands far to the west, which he interpreted as being China and Japan. See Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact, and also Brazil (mythical island). Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:55, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opportunity cost may have been an important part of their decision to allow the voyage, the potential loss of a couple of boats and an annoying man that kept begging for them to send him off into the unknown comapred to the potential huge benefits if he was right. Or, I think there were already suspicions going around that there was another whole continent in between, so even greater chance of a huge success for the same small cost. Also it is said that around the same time Giovanni Caboto (or however you want to spell it) heard the tales of Bristolian fishermen that had apparently been to this 'New World', where there were so many cod it was possible to walk across the sea on their backs and scoop them up in baskets. But that is, I think, off the original point of the question. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 10:38, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Royals may have been familar with manuscripts describing the Voyage Of Saint Brendan which took place in the 6th. century. See Brendan#Possible_link_to_Columbus I understand that British fishermen sometimes reached Newfoundland, although I'm not sure when that was. There were myths of Atlantic islands such as Hy-Brazil. To the Royals, the venture must have been seen as a good gamble, with an expected high return if it succeeeded. I don't know how much money they invested compared to other investments or as a proportion of their income. 92.28.246.75 (talk) 14:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There have been speculations that Columbus visited Iceland in 1477... AnonMoos (talk) 17:32, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Iceland was a known territory at that time though since it had been under continuous population (and even their own bishop) for the previous 500 years. Googlemeister (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only he knew how close he came to the New World, I think is the point. Iceland is a lot closer to Greenland (technically part of the New World) than it is to continental Europe. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:47, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did Icelanders really have no knowledge of the existence of Greenland at that time? The tales of the adventures of Gunnbjörn Ulfsson, Bjarni Herjólfsson, Leif Ericson and others must have existed in Columbus's day, otherwise they would not have survived to our own age. The Viking_expansion#Greenland was mentioned in the Icelandic Annals and sagas which must have been available in the 15th. century, and see Vinland#Medieval_geographers and Norse_colonization_of_the_Americas#Greenland. 92.28.245.105 (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that they knew about Greenland, but didn't think much of it, being just a vast glacier-covered wasteland, from their POV. People searching for gold don't care about places covered in glaciers, as that makes any gold underneath rather inaccessible. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There had been Scandinavian settlers in Greenland from ca. 1000 A.D. to as late as the early 1400s (see History_of_Greenland#Norse_settlement). Also, you seem to be confusing vikings with conquistadores; vikings were certainly not averse to gold, but gold was not their main motivation for western explorations... AnonMoos (talk) 09:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]