Late Roman army and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities: Difference between pages

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed]]{{Wikipedia:Reference desk/header|WP:RD/H}}
{{RomanMilitary}}
[[Category:Wikipedia help forums]]
[[Category:Wikipedia resources for researchers]]


{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 4}}
The '''Late Roman army''' is the term used to denote the military forces of the [[Roman Empire]] from the accession of Emperor [[Diocletian]] in [[284]] until the Empire's definitive division into Eastern and Western halves in [[395]]. A few decades afterwards, the Western army disintegrated as the [[Western Roman Empire|Western empire]] collapsed. The [[East Roman army]], on the other hand, continued intact and essentially unchanged until its reorganization by [[Theme (Byzantine administrative unit)|themes]] and transformation into the [[Byzantine army]] in the [[7th century]]. The term "late Roman army" is often used to include the East Roman army.


{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 5}}
The army of the [[Principate]] underwent a significant transformation as a result of the chaotic 3rd century. Unlike the Principate army, the army of the 4th century was heavily dependent on [[conscription]] and its soldiers were more poorly remunerated than in the 2nd century. [[Barbarian]]s from outside the empire probably supplied a much larger proportion of the late army's recruits than in the army of the 1st and 2nd centuries. There is no evidence, however, that barbarian recruitment damaged the army's effectiveness.


{{Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2008 October 6}}
The army of the 4th century was probably no larger than that of the 2nd. The main change in structure was the establishment of large armies that accompanied the emperors (''comitatus praesentales'') and were generally based away from the frontiers. Their primary function was to deter [[Usurper|usurpation]]s. The [[Roman legion|legions]] were split up into smaller units comparable in size to the [[Auxiliaries (Roman military)|auxiliary regiments]] of the Principate. In parallel, legionary armour and equipment were abandoned in favour of auxiliary equipment. Infantry adopted the more protective equipment of the Principate cavalry.


= October 7 =
The role of cavalry in the late army does not appear to have been enhanced as compared with the army of the Principate. The evidence is that cavalry was much the same proportion of overall army numbers as in the 2nd century and that its tactical role and prestige remained similar. Indeed, the cavalry acquired a reputation for incompetence and cowardice for their role in three major battles in mid-4th century. In contrast, the infantry retained its traditional reputation for excellence.


== Existing Gulags? ==
The 3rd and 4th centuries saw the upgrading of many existing border forts to make them more defensible, as well as the construction of new forts with much higher defensive specifications. The interpretation of this trend has fuelled an ongoing debate whether the army adopted a [[defence-in-depth (Roman military)|defence-in-depth]] strategy or continued the same posture of "forward defence" as in the early Principate. Many elements of the late army's defence posture were similar to those associated with forward defence, such as forward location of forts, frequent cross-border operations, and external buffer-zones of allied barbarian tribes. Whatever the defence strategy, it was apparently less successful in preventing barbarian incursions than in the 1st and 2nd centuries. This may have been due to heavier barbarian pressure, and/or to the practice of keeping large armies of the best troops in the interior, depriving the border forces of sufficient support.


Do gulags still exist in North Korea? [[Special:Contributions/203.188.92.70|203.188.92.70]] ([[User talk:203.188.92.70|talk]]) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
==Sources==
:Do you mean prisoner work camps? If so, they exist all over. See [[Labor camp]]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::But there's nothing about North Korea specifically. Is there an article on this? [[Special:Contributions/203.188.92.70|203.188.92.70]] ([[User talk:203.188.92.70|talk]]) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Ah, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_North_Korea#The_prison_system here we go]. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's peculiar, [[labour camp]] doesn't refer at all to the US, whereas [[prison farm]] deals only with the US. Anyway my guess is by 'gulag' the questioner was really thinking of places where political prisoners are included in the inmates and they do forced labour. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


== Industries open to the world to compete in but utterly dominated by a region or cultural bloc ==
Much of our evidence for 4th century army unit deployments is contained in a single document, the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', compiled ''ca.'' 395&ndash;420, a manual of all late Roman public offices, military and civil. The main deficiency with the ''Notitia'' is that it lacks any personnel figures so as to render estimates of army size impossible. Also, it was compiled at the very end of the 4th century; it is thus difficult to reconstruct the position earlier. However, the ''Notitia'' remains the central source on the late Army's structure due to the dearth of other evidence.<ref>Lee (1997) 212</ref>


For instance [[List of 100 largest law firms globally|international corporate law]] is shockingly Anglo-American. 95 of the largest firms are UK/USA and a few of the remaining are Australian. [[Shipbuilding]] according to the latest stats (our article needs catchup) is 90-something% East Asian. Many European countries fully participate in international finance/business and have high English fluency so the composition of the list is shocking. Many American/European countries had as late as the 70s, the majority of expertise and infrastructure, so how did that reversal happen? Anyways, can you think of any other you-would-think open industry that is so dominated? [[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] ([[User talk:Lotsofissues|talk]]) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The main literary sources for the 4th century army are the ''Res Gestae'' (History) of [[Ammianus Marcellinus]], whose surviving books cover the period 353 to 378. Marcellinus, himself a veteran soldier, is regarded by scholars as a reliable and valuable source. But he largely fails to remedy the deficiencies of the ''Notitia'' as regards army and unit strength or units in existence, as he is rarely specific about either. The third major source for the late army is the corpus of imperial decrees published in the East Roman empire in the 5th and 6th centuries: the [[Theodosian code]] (438) and the [[Corpus Iuris Civilis]] (528&ndash;39). These compilations of Roman laws dating from the 4th century contain numerous imperial decrees relating to all aspects of the regulation and administration of the late army.


:It does sound awful to dominate in law rather than producing something useful. I believe there was a state in the US which banned lawyers for a time. In Nigeria the people going to university all wanted to study law rather than anything else. Now they dominate in the email scam market. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
''De re militari'', a treatise on Roman military affairs by [[Vegetius]], a late 4th century writer, contains considerable information on the late army, although its focus is on the army of the Republic and Principate. However, Vegetius (who wholly lacked military experience) is often unreliable. For example, he stated that the army abandoned armour and helmets in the later 4th century (offering the absurd explanation that this equipment was too heavy), which is contradicted by sculptural and artistic evidence.<ref>Elton (1996) 110-5</ref> In general, it is not safe to accept a Vegetius statement unless it is corroborated by other evidence.


:[[Market dominance]] deals with some of this at a company level. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Scholars of the late army have to contend with a dramatic diminution of the epigraphic record in the 3rd and 4th centuries, compared with the 1st&ndash;2nd centuries. [[Roman military diploma|Diplomas]] were no longer issued to retiring auxiliaries after 203 (most likely because almost all were already Roman citizens by then). In addition, there was a huge reduction in the number of tombstones, altars and other dedications by Roman servicemen. Official stamps of military units on building materials (''e.g.'' tiles) are much rarer. But this trend should probably not be seen as indicating a decline in the army's administrative sophistication. Papyrus evidence from Egypt shows that military units continued to keep detailed written records in the 4th century (the vast bulk of which are lost due to organic decomposition). Most likely, the decline in inscriptions is due to changing fashion, in part influenced by the increase in barbarian recruits and the rise of Christianity.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 247-8</ref> The dearth of inscriptions leaves major gaps in our understanding of the late army and renders many conclusions tentative.


:You could also look at [[Business cluster]]: the theory is that specialized industries tend to cluster in a single geographic area, even when there are competing firms. --[[User:Xuxl|Xuxl]] ([[User talk:Xuxl|talk]]) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
== Evolution of the 4th century army ==
=== Background: the Principate army ===


== Treasury bonds' risk ==
The regular army of the [[Principate]] was established by the founder&ndash;emperor [[Augustus]] (ruled 30&nbsp;BC &ndash; 14&nbsp;AD) and survived until the end of the [[3rd century]]. The regular army consisted of two distinct corps, both being made up of mainly volunteer professionals.


If everything has a residual risk, why do so many people consider treasury bonds risk free?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The elite [[legions]] were large infantry formations, varying between 25 and 33 in number, of ca. 5,500 men each (all infantry save a small cavalry arm of 120) which admitted only [[Roman citizen]]s.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 50, 78</ref> The ''[[Roman auxiliaries|auxilia]]'' consisted of around 400 much smaller units of ca. 500 men each (a minority were up to 1,000 strong), which were divided into approximately 100 cavalry ''alae'', 100 infantry ''cohortes'' and 200 mixed cavalry/infantry units or ''cohortes equitatae''.<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref> Some auxilia regiments were designated ''sagittariorum'', meaning that they specialised in archery. The ''auxilia'' thus contained almost all the Roman army's cavalry and archers, as well as (from the late 1st century onwards) approximately the same number of foot soldiers as the legions.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 56&ndash;8</ref> The ''auxilia'' were mainly recruited from the ''[[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]]'': provincial subjects of the empire who did not hold Roman citizenship, but the ''auxilia'' also admitted Roman citizens and possibly ''barbari'', the Roman term for peoples living outside the empire's borders.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 80</ref> At this time both legions and auxilia were almost all based in frontier provinces.<ref>Holder (2003) 145</ref> The only substantial military force at the immediate disposal of the emperor was the elite [[Praetorian Guard]] of 10,000 men which was based in Rome.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58</ref>
:Have a look at [[Risk-free interest rate#Why risk-free?]]. Remember that "risk-free" (in this case) generally refers to [[credit risk]]. So even if the [[US Treasury]] never [[default (finance)|defaults]] on its obligations, those assets may carry other market risks which is what you might be referring to as residual risk. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 10:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::Actually, I suppose we must consider at least a tiny chance of default. Nothing can be risk-free. Nobody expects that serious governments will print money to pay debt. And what if a meteorite rain smashes major US cities?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The senior officers of the army were, until the 3rd century, mainly from the Italian aristocracy. Members of the [[Roman senate|senatorial]] order, the highest echelon, exclusively filled the following posts:
:::"Serious" governments won't end up in that situation very often. Extreme events are dealt with in the link above. [[Special:Contributions/Zain Ebrahim111|Zain Ebrahim]] ([[User talk:Zain Ebrahim111|talk]]) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:(a) ''legatus Augusti'' (provincial governor, who commanded military forces in the province as well as heading the civil administration)
:(b) ''legatus legionis'' (legion commander)
:(c) ''tribunus militum laticlavius'' (legion deputy commander).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 60</ref>


::::I'm sure Mr. K knows that risk is relative. "Risk-free" most often is verbal shorthand for "it's very unlikely that you'll lose money." Also, because some government securities sell at or below the real rate of inflation, in a sense you're paying for your low risk at the start, since the "investment" will end up with negative return. One way of looking at risk in government securities is to imagine a choice between two governments: if you could choose between a two-year U.S. treasury bond at 2.11% (the yield in the 9/30 auction), what interest would you demand from a two-year bond from the Russian or Chinese government? There's a pragmatic definition of risk. --- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] ([[User talk:OtherDave|talk]]) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The ''[[Equestrian (Roman)|equites]]'' (or "knights"), the second order of nobility, provided:
:(a) the governors of [[Egypt]] and a few minor provinces
:(b) the two ''[[praefectus praetorio|praefecti praetorio]]'' (commanders of the Praetorian Guard)
:(c) a legion's ''praefectus castrorum'' (3rd-in-command) and its remaining five ''tribuni militum'' (senior staff officers)
:(d) the ''praefecti'' (commanders) of the auxiliary regiments.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 64&ndash;5</ref>


:The way I look at it is that if the US government (or another government whose debt is considered risk-free) were to default on its debt then the economic crisis that would ensue (or, rather, that would have to be already in progress) would be so major that the maths would break down anyway so it doesn't matter that one of your assumptions proved false. For example, the [[efficient market hypothesis]] is going to fail because computer systems won't be able to cope with the volume of trades, the assumption that people are rational actors will go out the window (during panic people do not behave rationally), etc. That your risk-free rate wasn't actually risk free will be the least of your worries. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Although the two aristocratic orders were hereditary, they were not closed to outsiders. Commoners could be elevated to [[Equestrian (Roman)|equestrian]] rank, and ''equites'' to senatorial rank, by decree of the emperor, issued in his capacity as [[Roman censor]]. Elevation was usually granted only to those who met the minimum property qualification for each order, which was set by [[Augustus]] at 250,000 ''[[denarii]]'' for senators and at 100,000 ''denarii'' for ''equites'' (For comparison, a 1st century legionary's gross pay was 250 ''denarii'' per annum). Apart from the higher property requirement, it was far more difficult for a family to enter the senatorial order because the head of the family needed first to win a seat in the Senate itself, whose membership was limited to 600 life peers and where, as a consequence, only a few vacancies became available each year. ''Equites'', whose numbers were unrestricted, thus greatly outnumbered senatorians. Already wealthy to start with, the aristocracy accumulated even greater riches by their monopoly of the senior posts in the administration, which carried enormous salaries (and also opportunities for peculation). For example, the senatorial governor of [[Africa Proconsularis]] province was paid 250,000 ''denarii'', the same ''each year'' as the entire property qualification for his order, whilst the ''praefectus'' of an auxiliary cohort was paid ca. 50 times as much as a common foot soldier.<ref>Jones (1964) 31</ref><ref>Birley (1988) </ref> Senatorians were prohibited from engaging in commerce, which was considered beneath their status, and therefore invested all their wealth in land. Vast land portfolios, often spread across multiple provinces of the empire, were established. For example, in the time of emperor [[Nero]] (54-68), half of the cultivable land of Africa province, then among the most productive agriculturally, was owned by just six senators.<ref>Thompson (1987) 556</ref> ''Equites'', who were unrestricted, invested not only in land, but also in commercial enterprises: tax collection, shipping and overland transport, mines, construction and manufacturing industry. The Roman aristocracy thus monopolised political, military and economic power.


== Offline information ==
Hereditary senators and ''equites'' normally combined military service with civilian posts, a career path known as the ''[[cursus honorum]]'', typically starting with a period of junior administrative posts in Rome, followed by 5&ndash;10 years in the military and a final period of senior positions in the either the provinces or Rome.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 60, 66</ref> This tightly-knit ruling oligarchy achieved a remarkable degree of political stability. During the first 200 years of its existence (30 BC - 180 AD), the empire suffered only one major episode of civil strife (the [[Year of the four emperors|Civil War of 68-9]]). Otherwise, usurpation attempts by provincial governors were very few and swiftly suppressed.


What kind of information can't be found online?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
But already by the late 1st century, an alternative aristocracy, non-Italian and military, was becoming established. This was a result of the practice whereby the emperor customarily elevated the ''primuspilus'' (chief centurion) of each legion to equestrian rank on completion of his year in office. This resulted in some 30 career soldiers, mostly non-Italian and risen from the ranks, joining the aristocracy each year.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 65&ndash;6</ref>


:Check out the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request|Resource Request]] page and notice what sorts of requests do not get filled. Now that isn't an indication that the information is not online, but I suspect there are a few there which are not going to be found online (like the three volumes of ''Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles''). The factors that will decrease the likelihood of finding it online are: rarity (related to age of the information and overall availability), overall public interest, storage medium of the information (information printed on bad paper in the 1700s is unlikely survive the ravages of time nor will scrolls from Ancient Greece and Rome that happened to be in the hands of monks in Medieval Europe who thought the material was worthless and erased/wrote over the material), and interest by those who enjoy the material (rapid fans of certain types of fiction are likely to make even fairly obscure pieces available). The older the information is the more likely random chance will play a role in what survives (e.g. look at the extant works of ancient authors, there may be a correlation between the artistic worth of what survives but I suspect there will be exceptions).
=== 3rd century developments ===
The seminal development for the army in the early 3rd century was the ''[[Constitutio Antoniniana]]'' (Antonine Decree) of 212, issued by Emperor [[Caracalla]] (ruled 211&ndash;18). This granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire, ending the second-class status of the ''peregrini''.<ref>The Roman Law Library ''Constitutio Antoniniana de Civitate''</ref> This had the effect of breaking down the distinction between the citizen legions and the auxiliary regiments. In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the legions were the symbol (and guarantors) of the dominance of the Italian "master nation" over its subject peoples. In the 3rd century, they were no longer socially superior to their auxiliary counterparts (although they may have retained their elite status in military terms) and the legions' special armour and equipment (''e.g.'' the ''[[lorica segmentata]]'') was phased out.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref>


:Another place you could check out are the master lists compiled by the folks who make scanned comics available. They have a master list of all the comics produced by different companies and mark whether a scanned copy is available. I do not have the list handy and can't quite locate a copy, but I know several exist. If I remember correctly, the list follow the factors I listed above. Older comics were less likely to be available, along with comics that were not particularly popular.--[[User:Droptone|droptone]] ([[User talk:Droptone|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The traditional alternation between senior civilian and military posts fell into disuse in the 2nd and 3rd centuries, as the Italian hereditary aristocracy was progressively replaced in the senior echelons of the army by the ''primipilares'' (former chief centurions).<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 164&ndash;65</ref> In the 3rd century, only 10% of auxiliary prefects whose origins are known were Italian equestrians, compared to the majority in the previous two centuries.<ref>Holder (1982) 65</ref> At the same time, equestrians increasingly replaced the senatorial order in the top commands. [[Septimius Severus]] (ruled 197&ndash;211) placed equestrian ''primipilares'' in command of the three new legions he raised and [[Gallienus]] (260&ndash;68) did the same for all the other legions, giving them the title ''praefectus pro legato'' ("prefect acting as legate").<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 164</ref><ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref> The rise of the ''primipilares'' may have provided the army with more professional leadership, but it resulted in a major increase in military rebellions by ambitious generals seeking supreme power. The 3rd century saw numerous ''coups d'etat'' and destructive civil wars. Few 3rd century emperors enjoyed long reigns or died of natural causes.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 164-5</ref>


::Other possibilities:
Emperors responded to the increased insecurity with a steady build-up of the forces at their immediate disposal. These became known as the ''comitatus'' ("escort", from which derives the English word "committee"). To the Praetorian Guard's 10,000 men, Septimius Severus added the legion ''[[Legio II Parthica|II Parthica]]''. Based at [[Albano Laziale]] near Rome, it was the first legion to be stationed in Italy since Augustus. In addition, he doubled the size of the imperial escort cavalry, the ''equites singulares Augusti'', to 2,000 by drawing select detachments from ''alae'' on the borders.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 107</ref> In total, his ''comitatus'' numbered some 17,000 men, equivalent to 31 infantry ''cohortes'' and 11 ''alae'' of cavalry.<ref name="g170"/> The trend for the emperor to gather round his person ever greater forces reached its peak in the 4th century under [[Constantine I|Constantine I the Great]] (ruled 312&ndash;37), whose ''comitatus'' may have reached 100,000 men, perhaps a quarter of the army's total effective strength.<ref>Zosimus II.43</ref>
::*Why don't they just get over it?
::*Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
::*Does a person who posts philosophy-undergrad questions ever leave the basement, or can pizza just get downloaded?
:: --- [[User:OtherDave|OtherDave]] ([[User talk:OtherDave|talk]]) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


=== Expensive information ===
The rule of Gallienus saw the appointment of a senior officer, with the title of ''dux'' (plural form: ''duces'', the origin of the medieval noble rank of [[duke]]), to command all the ''comitatus'' cavalry. This force included some contingents of ''equites promoti'' (cavalry contingents detached from the legions), plus some apparently new Dalmatian light cavalry (''equites Dalmatarum'') and elements of allied barbarian cavalry (''equites foederati'').<ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref> Under Constantine I, the head of the ''comitatus'' cavalry was given the title of ''magister equitum'' ("master of horse"), which in Republican times had been held by the deputy to a [[Roman dictator]].<ref>Jones (1964) 97</ref> But neither title implies the existence of an independent "cavalry army", as was suggested by some more dated scholars. The cavalry under both officers were integral to mixed infantry and cavalry ''comitatus'', with the infantry remaining the predominant element.<ref name="g170">Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref>


What kind of information can't be found for free?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The 3rd century saw a progressive reduction in the size of the legions and even some auxiliary units. Legions were broken up into smaller units, as evidenced by the shrinkage and eventual abandonment of their traditional large bases, in Britain for example.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 244</ref> In addition, from the 2nd century onwards, the separation of some detachments from their parent units became permanent in some cases, establishing new unit types, ''e.g.'' the ''vexillatio equitum Illyricorum'' based in Dacia in the early 2nd century<ref>Holder (2003) 133</ref> and the ''equites promoti''<ref>Tomlin (1988) 108</ref> and ''numerus Hnaufridi'' in Britain.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 223</ref> This led to the proliferation of unit types in the 4th century, generally of smaller size than those of the Principate. For example, in the 2nd century, ''vexillatio'' (from ''vexillum'' = "standard") was originally a generic term meaning any detachment from a legion or auxiliary regiment, either cavalry or infantry. In the 4th century, it denoted an elite cavalry regiment.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 219</ref>


:Lots of information...You cannot find out detailed information about your health (from a medical professional) without paying - either you pay, your insurance company pays or your government pays. On [[IMDB]] you cannot find out certain information without 'IMDB pro' which costs money. In stock market trading terms a lot of information is free (level 1 I think?) but information at higher levels costs extra. Most knowledge that can be sold for a profit will be sold for a profit, though similarly with the right tools and techniques a hell of a lot of that info can be found for free...Or to use a point from [[Good Will Hunting]] you spent 100 thousand on a fancy education you could've gotten for $100 in late book fees at the library. [[Special:Contributions/194.221.133.226|194.221.133.226]] ([[User talk:194.221.133.226|talk]]) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In the 3rd century, a small number of regular units are recorded as bearing the names of barbarian tribes (as opposed to ''[[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]]'' tribal names) for the first time. These were clearly ''foederati'' (allied troops under a military obligation to Rome) converted into regular units, a trend that was to accelerate in the 4th century.<ref>Jones (1964) 620</ref> The ''ala I Sarmatarum'', for example, based in Britain, was probably composed of some of the 5,500 captured [[Sarmatian]] horsemen sent to garrison Hadrian's Wall by emperor [[Marcus Aurelius]] in ''ca.'' 175.<ref>[[Dio Cassius]] LXXI </ref> There is no evidence of irregular barbarian units becoming part of the regular Principate army until the 3rd century.<ref>Holder (1980) 109&ndash;24</ref>


=== 3rd century crisis ===
== Proof of address ==


Why do banks care where we really live? Is that regulated by law? Or do they need our addresses for a potential civil law litigation? [[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Relief of Shapur I capturing Valerian.jpg|thumb|right|Roman emperor [[Valerian I]] (left, kneeling) begs for his life after being captured by Persian [[Shah]] [[Shapur I]] (mounted) at the [[Battle of Edessa]] (259), the most humiliating of the military disasters suffered by the empire in the late 3rd c. According to one account, Valerian was in subsequent years forced to serve as the Shah's human footstool whenever he mounted his horse. This duty was considered a great honour by the Persians, and normally reserved for the highest-ranking noblemen. But it was certainly not seen as such by contemporary Roman opinion. Rock-cut bas-relief at [[Naqsh-e Rostam]] near Shiraz, Iran]]
:In Europe they must have proof of address to comply with [[money laundering]] legislation. If you deposit or withdraw a large sum they must ask you what it is for and record the answer. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The mid-3rd century saw the empire plunged into a [[Third Century Crisis|military and economic crisis]] which almost resulted in its disintegration. It consisted of a series of military catastrophes in 251&ndash;271 when Gaul, the Alpine regions and Italy, the Balkans and the East were simultaneously overrun by Alamanni, Sarmatians, Goths and Persians respectively.<ref>Jones (1964)25</ref> At the same time, the Roman army was struggling with the effects of a devastating [[pandemic]], probably of [[smallpox]], the [[Plague of Cyprian]] which began in 251 and was still raging in 270, when it claimed the life of Emperor [[Claudius II Gothicus]] (268&ndash;70).<ref>Zosimus I.24</ref> The evidence for the earlier [[Antonine Plague|Antonine pandemic]] of the late 2nd century, also smallpox, indicates a mortality of 15&ndash;30% in the empire as a whole.<ref>D. Ch. Stathakopoulos ''Famine and Pestilence in the late Roman and early Byzantine Empire'' (2007) 95</ref> Zosimus describes the Cyprianic outbreak as even worse.<ref>Zosimus I.16</ref> The armies would likely have suffered deaths at the top end of the range, due to their close concentration of individuals and frequent movements across the empire.<ref>Zosimus I.20</ref>


::Do they ask what is it for or where did it come from? What if you don't know what is if for?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The 3rd century crisis started a chain-reaction of socio-economic effects that proved decisive for the development of the late army. The combination of barbarian devastation and reduced tax-base due to plague bankrupted the imperial government, which resorted to issuing ever more debased coin ''e.g.'' the ''[[antoninianus]]'', the silver coin used to pay the troops in this period, lost 95% of its silver content between its launch in 215 and its demise in the 260s.<ref>J. Kent ''The Monetary System'' in Wacher (1988) 576&ndash;7.</ref> (In other words, by the end of the period, the government was able to issue 20 times the quantity of ''antoniniani'' with the same amount of precious metal). This inevitably led to rampant price inflation. For example, the price of wheat under Diocletian was 67 times the typical Principate figure.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 115</ref> The monetary economy collapsed and the army was obliged to rely on unpaid food levies to obtain sufficient supplies.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 110</ref> Food levies were raised when and where required, without regard to fairness, ruining the border provinces where the military was mainly based.<ref>Jones (1964) 32</ref> Soldiers' salaries became virtually worthless, reducing the army's recruits, once well-paid with plenty of [[disposable income]], to a [[subsistence agriculture|subsistence-level]] existence little better than that endured by their peasant families.<ref>Jones (1964) 29</ref> This in turn discouraged volunteers and forced the government to rely on conscription to find enough recruits.<ref>Jones (1964) 615</ref> But even this was not sufficient to plug the recruitment shortfalls caused by the plague. The only solution was large-scale recruitment of barbarians into the regular army. By the mid-4th century, barbarian-born men probably accounted for about a quarter of all recruits (and over a third in elite regiments), likely a far higher share than in the 1st&ndash;2nd centuries.<ref>Elton (1996) 148&ndash;52</ref>
:::They usually ask both. You can answer "general living expenses" or "top up current account". They might think that was odd if the sum was very large. Of course in the current climate you might say you felt it was safer to keep the cash under the bed and they would probably believe you. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::::Similar laws in the U.S. - Banks must demonstrate an attempt to avoid transactions of illegal funds. It used to be that banks should use ignorance as a defence. Now, they must show that they asked who owns the money (ie: who are you, where do you live, what do you do) and what the money is for (ie: where did you get it, what do you want to do with it). In all reality, the bank doesn't care. They are required to ask the questions, but not required to ensure the answers are truthful. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Illyrian military junta ===
[[Image:104 Claudius II Gothicus.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The Illyrian emperor [[Claudius II]] (r. 268&ndash;70), whose annihilating victories over the barbarian invaders of the empire saved it from collapse. Claudius was the first in a line of Illyrian emperors that were to rule the empire for a century. Debased silver [[antoninianus]] ]]
[[Image:Aureliancoin1.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Emperor [[Aurelian]] (270&ndash;75), who completed Claudius' expulsion of barbarian invaders from the empire. Bronze ''[[antoninianus]]'', [[Siscia]] mint]]
[[Image:Celio - le mura tra porta san Sebastiano e porta Ardeatina 1974.JPG|thumb|right|The [[Aurelian Walls]] of Rome, built by Aurelian in 270-5. Rome's first new wall since the construction of the [[Servian Wall]] after the Gauls sacked Rome 650 years earlier, they symbolised the pervasive insecurity of the 3rd century empire. Original height: 8m (25 ft). Doubled in 410 to 16m (52 ft) after second sack of Rome in 410. Both walls and towers were originally crenellated, but this has only survived in small sections. Most of the 19km circuit still stands today]]
[[Image:DiocletianusFollis.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The emperor [[Diocletian]] (ruled 284&ndash;305), who launched wide-ranging reforms of the Roman army and government. Bronze ''[[follis]]'' coin]]
[[Image:The-tetrarchs.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Tetrarchs]]: Diocletian and his three colleagues. To the left, the two ''Augusti'' (co-emperors), to the right the two ''Caesars'' (deputy emperors). Note the "Pannonian-style" caps commonly worn (out of combat) by officers in the late army as a result of the pervasive influence of the Illyrian officer class; and the sword grips with eagle-head pommels. [[Porphyry]] statue on [[Basilica di San Marco]], Venice]]
[[Image:Constantin I.JPG|thumb|right|200px|The emperor [[Constantine I]] (ruled 312&ndash;37), who established the first large-scale ''comitatus'' (imperial escort army) and divided the army into escort army (''comitatenses'') and border (''limitanei'') troops, giving the late Roman army the structure described in the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Bust in [[Musei Capitolini]], Rome]]
The Illyrian-speaking tribes that dominated the Roman provinces of [[Pannonia]], [[Dalmatia]] and [[Moesia Superior]], and included mountain tribes of semi-nomadic pastoralists such as the [[Dalmatae]] and [[Breuci]], had a fearsome reputation as warriors.<ref>N. G. L. Hammond ''The Illyrians and NW Greeks'' in Cambridge Ancient History Vol VI (1994) 428</ref> They were seen as excellent soldier material. From the time of Domitian (ruled 81&ndash;96), when over half the Roman army was deployed in the Danubian regions, the Illyrian provinces became the most important recruiting ground of the auxilia and later the legions.<ref name="t109">Tomlin (1988) 109</ref> In the 3rd century, Romanised Illyrians, mostly ''primipilares'' and their descendants, came to dominate the army's senior officer echelons.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 165</ref>


:Another reason is that if the person dies, they have a way of identifying the account. Accounts are frozen till the person in charge comes and asks for them. Yes, the [[Social Security number]] helps, but it's just another failsafe to make sure the person is receiving funds fromt he right deceased person. In fact, banks often have someone who scans the obituaries every day; if they read, "John Smoth, of 22nd Street in x township," and they have 3 John Smiths with accounts, they more easily know which one to freeze till the estate process begins.[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Finally, the Illyrian officer class seized control of the state itself. In 268, the emperor [[Gallienus]] (ruled 260&ndash;68) was overthrown by a ''coup d'état'' organised by a clique of Illyrian senior officers, including his successors Claudius II Gothicus and [[Aurelian]] (270&ndash;75).<ref>Zosimus I.22</ref> They and their successors [[Probus]] (276&ndash;78) and [[Diocletian]] (ruled 284&ndash;305) and his colleagues in the [[Tetrarchy]] formed a sort of self-perpetuating [[military junta]] of Illyrian officers who were born in the same provinces (several in the same city, [[Sirmium]], a major legionary base in [[Moesia Superior]]) or had served in the same regiments.<ref name="t109"/>


== do violinists get callouses the way guitar players do? ==
The junta succeeded in reversing the military disasters of 251&ndash;71 with a string of brilliant victories, most notably the defeat inflicted at [[Battle of Naissus|Naissus]] on a vast Gothic army by Claudius II, which was so crushing that the Goths did not seriously threaten the empire again until a century later at [[Battle of Adrianople|Adrianople]] (378).<ref>Zosimus I.23</ref>


do all stringed players? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.120.232.170|82.120.232.170]] ([[User talk:82.120.232.170|talk]]) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The [[Illyrian emperors]] continued to rule the empire until 379. Indeed, until 363, power was held by descendants of one of the original junta members. Constantine I' s father, [[Constantius Chlorus]] was a ''Caesar'' (deputy emperor) in Diocletian's Tetrarchy.<ref>Zosimus II.40</ref> His grandson [[Julian]] ruled until 363. The [[Illyrian emperors]] restored the army to its former strength and effectiveness. But they had a narrow political focus, solely concerned with the needs and interests of the military. They were also divorced from the immensely wealthy Roman senatorial families that continued to dominate the Senate and owned much of the empire's land. This in turn bred a feeling of alienation from the army among the Roman aristocracy which in the later 4th century began to resist the military's exorbitant demands for recruits and supplies.<ref>Lee (1997) 221 (note 58)</ref>
: I am a guitarist, and not a violinist, so this is just speculation, but any activity which produces friction at the same point on the skin is likely to produce calluses. See [[Callus]] for more information. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::[[Cello|Cellists]] certainly do, particularly on the side of the left thumb, from playing in [[thumb position]]s; to the degree that if you're as out of practice as I am, it can be quite painful until you develop the calluses. I also remember a friend once taking a week-long taster course on the [[sitar]], and painting his fingers with something thick and robust after the first day. --[[User:ColinFine|ColinFine]] ([[User talk:ColinFine|talk]]) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Diocletian ===


:::Recognizing that this is original research of the most ghastly kind (personal experience), I can tell you that as a violinist myself, the answer is YES. You only get them on the four fingers of your left hand, and a bit on the side of your thumb sometimes. [[User:Antandrus|Antandrus ]] [[User_talk:Antandrus|(talk)]] 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Diocletian's wide-ranging administrative, economic and military reforms were entirely aimed at providing the military with sufficient resources, both in manpower and supplies.<ref>Luttwak (1977) 177</ref> In the words of one historian, "Diocletian ... turned the entire empire into a regimented logistic base" (to supply the army).<ref>Luttwak (1976) 177</ref>


== fly"s eye dome ==
To this end, Diocletian instituted the system of ''indictiones'' (tax demands issued in advance of the tax cycle), with the amount of tax demanded related to the amount of cultivated land in each province, aimed at making more efficient and more equitable the collection of taxes in kind. To deal with the problem of rural depopulation (and consequent loss of food production), he decreed that peasants must register in their home locality and never leave it.<ref>Jones (1964)</ref>


where do I buy fly"s eye domes? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.144.127.86|70.144.127.86]] ([[User talk:70.144.127.86|talk]]) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
To ensure the army received sufficient recruits, Diocletian appears to have instituted systematic annual conscription for the first time since the days of the [[Roman Republic]]. In addition he is probably responsible for the decree, first recorded in 313, obliging the sons of serving soldiers (and officers) or veterans to enlist.<ref>Jones (1964) 615</ref>


== When was the last time Michigan voted for a Republican presidential candidate? ==
Under Diocletian, the number of legions, and probably of other units, appears to have more than doubled.<ref>Jones (1964) 17</ref> But it is unlikely that overall army size increased nearly as much, since unit strengths appear to have been reduced, in some cases drastically.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 117</ref><ref>Tomlin (1988) 111</ref> Even so, it is generally agreed that Diocletian increased army numbers substantially. But this was probably from a much lower base than its Severan peak of ca. 440,000, as the army presumably shrank sharply as a result of plague and military disasters in the late 3rd century.<ref>MacMullen (1979) 455</ref> The evidence is that Diocletian restored its strength to at least that of the early 2nd century (ca. 390,000).<ref>John Lydus ''De Mensibus'' I.47</ref> But even more than restoring the size of the army, Diocletian's efforts and resources were focused on a massive upgrading of the defensive infrastructure along all the empire's borders, including new forts and strategic military roads.<ref>Jones (1964) 55-6</ref>


I'm from Michigan, and I know it's a strongly democratic state (or at least it has been for the past several presidential elections), and I was just wondering when the last time was when a Republican presidential candidate won in Michigan. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Diocletian and his three colleagues each had a ''comitatus'' at their disposal. But under Diocletian, these remained informal and small in size and relied on reinforcements from frontier forces for major operations.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Nevertheless, added together, they must have constituted a significant force.


:See [[United States presidential election, 1988]] -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Diocletian's administrative reforms had the twin aims of ensuring political stability and providing the bureaucratic infrastructure needed to raise the recruits and supplies needed by the army.


::Thanks, kainaw! I knew it had been a while, but wasn't sure when. Kind of ironic, because [[Jackson, Michigan]] is the birthplace of the Republican party... --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
At the top, Diocletian instituted the [[Tetrarchy]]. This divided the empire into two halves, East and West, each to be ruled by an ''Augustus'' (emperor); each ''Augustus'' would in turn appoint a deputy called a ''Caesar'', who would act both as his second-in-command and designated successor. This four-man team would thus have the flexibility to deal with multiple and simultaneous challenges, while also providing a legitimate succession.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 166</ref>
:::You may find people who dispute that. From [[History of the United States Republican Party]] "The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was first organized locally in 1854" - However, this apparent discrepancy is explained by the following from www.gop.com: "The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan." [http://www.gop.com/About/AboutRead.aspx?Guid=a747a888-0ae6-4441-94f4-2a3a6561f872] (Pick your definition of "birthplace".) -- [[Special:Contributions/128.104.112.147|128.104.112.147]] ([[User talk:128.104.112.147|talk]]) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


----
Diocletian reformed the provincial administration, establishing a three-tiered provincial hierarchy, in place of the previous single-tier structure. The original 42 Principate provinces were almost tripled in number to ''ca.'' 120. These were grouped into 12 divisions called [[Roman diocese|dioceses]], each under a ''vicarius'', in turn grouped into four [[praetorian prefectures]], to correspond to the areas of command assigned to the four Tetrarchs, who were each assisted by a ''praefectus praetorio'' (not be confused with the commanders of the Praetorian Guard). The aim of this fragmentation of provincial administration was probably to reduce the possibility of military rebellion by governors (by reducing the forces they each controlled).<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref>
The question of the "birthplace of the Republican party" is actually kind of indeterminate, since "Anti-Nebraska" meetings and coalition groups fairly spontaneously sprung up all over the northern U.S. in response to the [[Kansas-Nebraska act]] of 1854. The place of the first meeting to use the word "Republican" to describe itself (or the first meeting for which there is currently-surviving evidence that it used the word "Republican") does not mark the founding of the Republican party in any very meaningful sense... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


== politic in USA ==
Also to this end, Diocletian divorced military from civil command in some cases. The old ''legatus Augusti'' (governor) of the Principate had combined the role of administrative head with that of commander-in-chief of forces in his province. Now, command of troops in some provinces was entrusted to purely military officers called ''duces limitis'' ("border commanders"). However, this was not universally applied. In many provinces, the governor remained in command. In any case, both ''duces'' and governors continued to be commanded by their ''vicarius'' and ''praefectus praetorio''.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Diocletian completed the exclusion of the senatorial class, still dominated by the Italian aristocracy, from all senior military commands and all top administrative posts except in Italy.<ref>Jones (1964) 50</ref>


Can I know the processus of appointment of high personalities in USA? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/41.207.217.5|41.207.217.5]] ([[User talk:41.207.217.5|talk]]) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Ironically, Diocletian's administrative reforms may have worked against the army's best interests by entrenching a largely conscript army. The reforms led to explosive growth in the size of the imperial bureaucracy. The Principate had been a remarkably slimline administration, with just 250 senior officials running the vast empire, relying on local government and private contractors to deliver the necessary taxes and services. By the time of the ''Notitia'', comparable positions had grown to ''ca.'' 6,000, a 24-fold increase.<ref>Heather (2005) 228</ref> Admittedly, late high officials were paid far less than in the Principate, perhaps an average of a tenth as much.<ref>Jones (1964) 31</ref> Nevertheless, the late bureaucracy would still have been around two and a half times as expensive overall, swallowing resources which would probably have been sufficient to bring soldiers' pay back to 2nd-century levels.<ref>cf. Duncan-Jones (1994) </ref> The lower pay of the 4th century obliged the army to rely on often reluctant or poor-quality conscripts rather than attracting better-grade volunteers as in the Principate.
:You can look at [[Politics of the United States]] for information on the organization of the government, [[Elections in the United States]] for information on how political leaders are elected to office, or even read the [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America United States Constitution], which lays out the entire process officially. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


::In USA, high personalities tend not to go into politics, but stick closer to the [[Entertainment]] field.--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Constantine ===
::Some high personalities have simply claimed they stopped using years ago, when running for office. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:::Please don't bite the newbies. The last two posters are joking about the fact that "high" can refer to drug usage. The original poster was obviously talking about high political offices. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, October 8, 2008.
Constantine I probably completed the replacement of provincial governors as commanders of military units in their provinces by ''duces''. The ''praefecti praetorio'' lost their military command and became purely administrative officials, whose central and vital role was to ensure that the armies in their circumscription were properly supplied.<ref>Jones (1964) 606, 627</ref>


== Searching for an article on the problem of bearerless names ==
After defeating [[Maxentius]] in 312, Constantine disbanded the Praetorian Guard, ending the latter's 300-year existence.<ref>Jones (1964) 100</ref> Although the instant reason was the Guard's support for his rival Maxentius, a force based in Rome had also become obsolete since emperors now rarely resided there. The imperial escort role of the Guard's cavalry, the ''equites singulares Augusti'', was now fulfilled by the ''[[scholae]]''. These elite cavalry regiments existed by the time of Constantine and may have been founded by Diocletian.<ref>Jones (1964) 613</ref>


Salutations. I'm planning on writing an article on [[Meinong's Jungle]], and I want to see if there are other similar articles I should look at first. The basic topic is the problem of bearerless names; that is, "how can we refer to things that don't exist?", "why is it that people seem to have serious converstaions about [[Harry Potter]] when there is no such person" etc. However, I can't find articles on [[The present King of France]] (a famous example), [[problem of bearerless names]], [[non-referring names]] etc. The question arose most prominently around the birth of [[analytic philosophy]] amidst exchanges between [[Alexius Meinong]], [[Gottlob Frege]] and [[Bertrand Russel]]. There's an article on the [[theory of descriptions]], but that is only a solution to the problem. Can anyone find the Wikipedia article I am looking for? <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Constantine expanded his ''comitatus'' into a major and permanent force. This was achieved by the addition of units withdrawn from the frontier provinces and by creating new units: more cavalry ''vexillationes'' and new-style infantry units called ''auxilia''. The expanded ''comitatus'' was now placed under the command of two new officers, a ''magister peditum'' to command the infantry and ''magister equitum'' for cavalry (after Constantine's death, these titles became interchangeable, with both officers commanding mixed infantry/cavalry forces). ''Comitatus'' troops were now formally denoted ''[[comitatenses]]'' to distinguish them from the frontier forces (''[[limitanei]]'').<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> The size of the Constantinian ''comitatus'' is uncertain. But Constantine mobilised 98,000 troops for his war against Maxentius, according to Zosimus.<ref>Zosimus II.43</ref> It is likely that most of these were retained for his ''comitatus''.<ref>Jones (1964) 97</ref> This represented about a quarter of the total regular forces, if one accepts that the Constantinian army numbered around 400,000.<ref>Elton (1996) 120</ref> The rationale for such a large ''comitatus'' has been debated among scholars. A traditional view sees the ''comitatus'' as a strategic reserve which could be deployed against major barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire or as the core of large expeditionary forces sent across the borders. But more recent scholarship has viewed its primary function as insurance against potential usurpers.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref> (See Strategy below).


:King of France? Do you mean the [[Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou|Legitimist claimnant]], the [[Henri, comte de Paris, duc de France|Orleanist claimnant]], the [[Charles Napoléon|Bonapartist claimnant]], or the [[Franz, Duke of Bavaria|Jacobite claimnant]]? I've always found "the present King of France" to be a silly example, since you are actually discussing something that ''does'' exist. --[[User:Carnildo|Carnildo]] ([[User talk:Carnildo|talk]]) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, Constantine appears to have reorganised the border forces along the Danube, replacing the old-style ''alae'' and ''cohortes'' with new units of ''cunei'' (cavalry) and ''auxilia'' (infantry) respectively.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> It is unclear how the new-style units differed from the old-style ones, but those stationed on the border (as opposed to those in the ''comitatus'') may have been smaller, perhaps half the size.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 239</ref> In sectors other than the Danube, old-style auxiliary regiments survived.<ref>Jones (1964) 58</ref>


::Really? Who would that august personage be, Carnildo? (Btw, 10 marks for consistency with "claimnant", but it's spelled "claimant".) -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The 5th-century historian [[Zosimus]] strongly criticised the establishment of the large ''comitatus'', accusing Constantine of wrecking his predecessor Diocletian's work of strengthening the border defences: "By the foresight of Diocletian, the frontiers of the Roman empire were everywhere studded with cities and forts and towers... and the whole army was stationed along them, so it was impossible for the barbarians to break through... But Constantine ruined this defensive system by withdrawing the majority of the troops from the frontiers and stationing them in cities which did not require protection."<ref>Zosimus II.54&ndash;5 (Translation in Jones (1964) 52)</ref>


:::Possibly [http://www.thekingoffranceband.com/ The King of France]? [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Zosimus' critique is probably excessive, both because the ''comitatus'' already existed in Diocletian's time and because some new regiments were raised by Constantine for his expanded ''comitatus'', as well as incorporating existing units.<ref>Jones (1964) 52</ref> Nevertheless, the majority of his ''comitatus'' was drawn from existing frontier units.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 111</ref> This drawdown of large numbers of the best units inevitably increased the risk of successful large-scale barbarian breaches of the frontier defences.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 179</ref>


:: I sometimes refer to such persons as ''the king-subjunctive''. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
It was probably this factor that led to the emergence of ''comitatus'' based in frontier regions (the regional ''comitatus''), distinct from the ''comitatus praesentales'' escorting the emperor(s). From the defeat of the usurper [[Magnentius]] in 353, there appears to have always been a ''comitatus'' in Gaul and one in the East, each under a ''magister equitum'', and one in Illyricum under a senior ''[[comes|comes (rei militaris)]]'' (plural form: ''comites'', literally "companion (for military affairs)", the origin of the medieval noble rank of ''[[count]]''), irrespective of where the emperor(s) were.<ref>Jones (1964) 125</ref> These regional armies became steadily more numerous until, by the time of the ''Notitia'', there were three in the East and six in the West.<ref>Jones (1964) 608</ref> Their evolution was a partial reversal of Constantine's policy and, in effect, a vindication of Zosimus' critique that the ''limitanei'' forces had been left with insufficient support.<ref>Lee (1997) 216</ref> But the imperial escort armies remained in existence, and in ''ca.'' 420 the three ''comitatus praesentales'' listed in the ''Notitia'', each 20&ndash;30,000 strong, still contained a total of ''ca.'' 75,000 men.<ref>Treadgold (1995) 45</ref> If one accepts that the army at the time numbered about 350,000 men, the escort armies still contained 20&ndash;25% of the total effectives.


Maybe you'll like [[definite description]] better than [[theory of descriptions]]? -<span style="font-family: cursive">[[User:Nunh-huh|Nunh-huh]]</span> 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Regiments which remained with the escort armies were, not later than 365, denoted ''[[Palatini (Roman military)|palatini]]'' (lit. "of the palace", from ''palatium''), a higher grade of ''comitatenses''.<ref>Jones (1964) 125</ref> Regiments were now classified in four grades, which denoted quality, prestige and probably pay. These were, in descending order, ''scholares'', ''palatini'', ''comitatenses'' and ''limitanei''.<ref>Elton (1996) 94-5</ref>


:I proposed including [[:Image:L actuel roi de France.jpg]] on the [[Definite description]] article, but no one seconded my suggestion... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
== Army size ==
:We have an article [[empty name]]. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


Thank you Algebraist for hitting the jackpot, and everyone else for the entertaining sideshow! <font color="404040">[[User talk:Skomorokh|<font face="Garamond" color="black">the skomorokh</font>]]</font> 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The traditional view of scholars is that the 4th century army was much larger than the 2nd century army, in the region of double the size. The late 6th century writer [[Agathias]], gives a global total of 645,000 effectives for the army "in the old days", presumed to mean at its peak under Constantine I.<ref>[[Agathias]] ''History'' V.13.7&ndash;8; Jones (1964) 680</ref> This figure probably includes fleets, giving a total of ca. 600,000 for the army alone. [[A.H.M. Jones]]' ''Later Roman Empire'' (1964), which contains the fundamental study of the late Roman army, calculated a similar total of 600,000 (exc. fleets) by applying his own estimates of unit strength to the units listed in the ''Notitia Dignitatum''.<ref>Jones (1964) 683</ref>


== Need reference re: Aroostook War ==
But the Agathias-Jones view has fallen out of favour with some historians in more recent times. Agathias' figure, if it has any validity at all, probably represents the official, as opposed to actual strength of the Constantinian army. In reality, the slim evidence is that late units were often severely under-strength, perhaps only about two-thirds of official.<ref>Elton (1996) 89</ref> Thus Agathias' 600,000 on paper may not have been more than ca. 400,000 in reality. The latter figure accords well with the other global figure from ancient sources, that of the 6th century writer [[John Lydus]] of 389,704 (excluding fleets) for the army of Diocletian. Lydus' figure is accorded greater credibility than Agathias' by scholars because of its precision (implying that it was found in an official document) and the fact that it is ascribed to a specific time period.<ref>Heather (1995) 63</ref>


Dear Wikipedians,
Jones' figure of 600,000 is based on assumptions about unit strengths which may be too high. This especially concerns ''limitanei'' units (there is less dispute about the size of ''comitatus'' units, for which there is more available evidence). Jones calculated unit strengths in Egypt under Diocletian using papyrus evidence of unit payrolls. But a rigorous reassessment of the evidence by R. Duncan-Jones concluded that Jones had overestimated unit sizes by 2&ndash;6 times.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 105&ndash;17</ref> For example, Jones estimated legions on the frontiers at ca. 3,000 men.<ref>Jones (1964) 681-2</ref> But Duncan-Jones' revisions found frontier legions of around 500 men, an ''ala'' of just 160 and an ''equites'' unit of 80. Even allowing for the possibility that some of these units were simply detachments from larger units, it is likely that Diocletianic unit strengths were far lower than earlier.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 117</ref>


Wikipedia's article on the Aroostook War says that in February 1839, Mainers heard that the Mohawks had offered their military support to Quebec. I need to know the origin (reference, citation) for that fact, for an article I am writing on early West Branch Penobscot settlers.[[User:Mainehist|Mainehist]] ([[User talk:Mainehist|talk]]) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Duncan-Jones' figures receive support from a substantial corpus of excavation evidence from all the imperial borders which suggests that late forts were designed to accomodate much smaller garrisons than their Principate predecessors. Where such sites can be identified with forts listed in the ''Notitia'', the implication is that the resident units were also smaller. Examples include the ''Legio II Herculia'', created by Diocletian, which occupied a fort just one-seventh the size of a typical Principate legionary base, implying a strength of ca. 750 men. At ''Abusina'' on the Rhine, the ''Cohors III Brittonum'' was housed in a fort only 10% the size of its old Trajanic fort, suggesting that it numbered only around 50 men. The evidence must be treated with caution as identification with ''Notitia'' sites is often tentative and again, the units in question may be detachments (the ''Notitia'' frequently shows the same unit in two or three different locations simultaneously). Nevertheless, the weight of the evidence favours small sizes for frontier units.<ref>Coello (1996) 51</ref>


= October 8 =
At the same time, more recent work has suggested that the regular army of the 2nd century was considerably larger than the ca. 300,000 traditionally assumed. This is because the 2nd century auxilia were not just equal in numbers to the legions as in the early 1st century, but some 50% larger.<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref> The Principate army probably reached a peak of nearly 450,000 (excluding fleets and ''foederati'') at the end of the 2nd century.<ref>MacMullen (1979) 454</ref> Furthermore, the evidence is that the actual strength of 2nd century units was typically much closer to official (ca. 85%).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 144&ndash;5</ref> In any case, estimates of army strength for the Principate are based on much firmer evidence than those for the later period, which are highly speculative, as the table below shows.


== Opinions ==
{| class = wikitable
{{resolved}}
|+ '''ROMAN ARMY NUMBERS 24&ndash;337'''
After looking up what an opinion is on Wikipedia. It made me greatly saddened that there was no truth to our personal judgments, beliefs, and thoughts. Why personally, do you live knowing that we cannot penetrate the system of nature in truth? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/74.170.45.41|74.170.45.41]] ([[User talk:74.170.45.41|talk]]) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
! Army corps !! Tiberius<br>''24'' !! Hadrian<br>''ca. 130'' !! S. Severus<br>''211'' !! Diocletian<br>''start 284'' !! Diocletian<br>''284&ndash;305'' !! Constantine I<br>''end rule 337'' !! Notitia<br>''ca. 420''
|-
|LEGIONS
|125,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 124&ndash;5 (map)(25 legions of 5,000 men each)</ref>
|155,000<ref>Holder (2003) 120 (28 legions of 5,500 each: double-strength 1st cohorts introduced in late 1st c.)</ref>
|182,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 152&ndash;3 (map) (33 legions of 5,500 each)</ref>
|
|
|
|
|-
|AUXILIA
|125,000<ref>Tacitus ''Annales'' IV.5</ref>
|218,000<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref>
|250,000<ref>Assuming that auxilia would be expanded by the same amount as legions. J. C. Spaul ''ALA'' (1996) 257&ndash;60 and ''COHORS 2'' (2000) 523&ndash;7 identify 4 ''alae'' and 20&ndash;30 ''cohortes'' raised in the late 2nd/early 3rd centuries</ref>
|
|
|
|
|-
|PRAETORIAN GUARD
|~~5,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 cohorts of 480 men each plus German bodyguards</ref>
|~10,000<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58: 9 double-cohorts of 800 men each plus 2,000 ''equites singulares''</ref>
|~10,000
|
|
|
|
|-
|'''Total Roman Army'''
|'''255,000'''<ref>Implied by Tacitus ''Annales''</ref>
|'''383,000'''<ref>Hassall (2000) 320</ref>
|'''442,000'''<ref>MacMullen ''How Big was the Roman Army?'' in ''KLIO'' (1979) 454 estimates 438,000</ref>
|'''350,000?'''<ref>MacMullen (1979) 455</ref>
|'''390,000'''<ref>John Lydus ''De Mensibus'' I.47</ref>
|'''410,000?'''<ref>Elton (1996) 120</ref>
|'''350,000?'''<ref>Applying mid-point unit size estimates to Notitia units</ref>
|}
NOTE: Regular land army only (excludes irregular barbarian ''foederati'' units and [[Roman navy]] effectives)


:Although the mysteries of life and death are ultimately unknowable, I go on living because sometimes I get [[pie]]. —[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] [[User talk:Kevin Myers|Myers]] 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
== Army structure ==
::If there was ''no'' truth ''whatsoever'' in your personal judgements, beliefs and thoughts then you might have difficulty in continuing to live. [[User:Itsmejudith|Itsmejudith]] ([[User talk:Itsmejudith|talk]]) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::As a [[Christian]], I have faith in the one who does know the unknowable, and that He ([[Jesus Christ]]) lives in me. So, [[faith]] plays a large part in how some poeple can live.[[User:DTF955|Somebody or his brother]] ([[User talk:DTF955|talk]]) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:I think it is absolutely wrong to say that there is no truth to judgments, beliefs, thoughts. There are certainly beliefs with more truth than others. The fundamental epistemological issue is not so much whether truth is out there (which seems hard to avoid), but whether we do know it or can know it. --[[Special:Contributions/140.247.11.23|140.247.11.23]] ([[User talk:140.247.11.23|talk]]) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The later 4th century army contained three types of army group: (a) imperial escort armies (''comitatus praesentales''). These were ordinarily based near the imperial capitals (Milan in the West, Constantinople in the East), but usually accompanied the emperors on campaign. (b) Regional field armies (''comitatus''). These were based in strategic regions, on or near the frontiers. (c) Border armies (''exercitus limitanei'').<ref>Lee (1997) 215&ndash;6</ref>


:My body continues to live despite my belief that this life is all that there is and that there is no God. I see no scientific reason why I should suddenly die because of my beliefs and in fact I'm very happy to continue living this way. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Types (a) and (b) are both frequently defined as "mobile field armies". This is because, unlike the ''limitanei'' units, they were not based in fixed locations. But their strategic role was quite different. The escort armies' primary role was probably to provide the emperor's ultimate insurance against usurpers: the very existence of such a powerful force would deter many potential rivals, and if it did not, the escort army alone was often sufficient to defeat them.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref> Their secondary role was to accompany the emperor on major campaigns such as a foreign war or to repel a large barbarian invasion.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 171</ref> The regional ''comitatus'', on the other hand, had the task of supporting the ''limitanei'' in operations in the region they were based in.<ref>Elton (1996) 214&ndash;5</ref>


=== Command structure ===
== [[Zhuang people]] ==
{{FixHTML|beg}}
[[Image:Late roman army.svg|thumb|right|400px| High command structure of the East Roman army ca. 395. Based on the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Troop numbers based on recent unit size estimates. Reporting structure as in Jones (1964) 100 and 609]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:Late West Roman army.svg|thumb|right|400px| High command structure of the West Roman army ca. 410&ndash;425. Based on the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]''. Troop numbers based on recent unit size estimates.<ref>Jones (1964) 100, 609</ref>]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}


I'm curious: How assimilated are these folks into the Chinese national fabric? (Are they anywhere near as assimilated as Manchu and Han?) It would be great if responders could note the extend of their Chinese studies/living experience.
{{FixHTML|end}}
The command structures of the Eastern and Western armies of the empire, as recorded in the ''Notitia Dignitatum'', are represented diagramatically in the organisation charts (right). The eastern section of the ''Notitia'' is dated to ca. 395, at the death of [[Theodosius I]]. The western section was completed later, in the 420's, after the West had been overrun by barbarian tribes.<ref>Heather (2005) 246</ref> The ''Notitia'' thus describes the evolved structure of the late army after a century of mutation. The position under Diocletian and even Constantine would have been very different.
[[User:Lotsofissues|Lotsofissues]] ([[User talk:Lotsofissues|talk]]) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5000 years ago. Because of their long history in China, many Zhuang are assimilated with other Chinese groups in these urban areas.
The three ''comitatus praesentales'' (two in the East and one in the West) were each commanded by a ''[[magister militum]]'' ("master of soldiers", the highest military rank. In the East, this title had by 395 replaced ''magister peditum'' and ''magister equitum'' as these were no longer related to infantry or cavalry, but they were retained in the West). Each ''magister'' reported direct to the emperor and was assisted, at least from the early 5th century, by a deputy called a ''vicarius''. The Eastern structure remained essentially intact until the 6th century.<ref name="j609">Jones (1964) 609</ref> The Western structure was already in a state of collapse at the time of the Western ''Notitia''.


==[[2008 Thai political crisis]]==
In the East, the commanders of the five regional ''comitatus'' (all of ''magister'' rank except the ''comites'' of Egypt and [[Isauria]]) also reported to the emperor direct, according to the ''Notitia'' (although 5th century laws imply that the two ''comites'' were subordinate to the ''magister militum per Orientem''). In contrast, the commanders of the western regional ''comitatus'' were, unlike their Eastern colleagues, all of the lower ''comes'' rank, save for the ''magister equitum per Gallias'': this is because all but the latter ''comitatus'' were smaller than the typical 20-30,000 commanded by a ''magister''. They reported to the ''magister peditum'' in control of the single Western escort army and the effective supreme commander of the Western army. This anomalous structure had arisen through the ascendancy of the half&ndash;barbarian military strongman [[Stilicho]] (395-410), who was appointed by Theodosius I as guardian of his infant son and successor [[Honorius]]. Unlike in the East, however, Stilicho's successors (e.g. [[Ricimer]]) had succeeded in retaining their supreme command. It appears that in the earlier 4th century, both the ''magister peditum praesentalis'' and the ''magister equitum per Gallias'' reported to the emperor but whether the ''comites'' also did so is uncertain.<ref>Jones (1964) 609&ndash;10</ref>
Okay, so some Thai people are protesting for ''less'' elected members of parliament and ''more'' appointed members. Do they "hate freedom" or something? [[Special:Contributions/118.90.128.113|118.90.128.113]] ([[User talk:118.90.128.113|talk]]) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, basically, ''they'' (once known as the [[People's Alliance for Democracy]], good Orwellian name) hate democracy, because they are (relatively) wealthy elites from the cities and military people who don't want the majority of poor farmers to have a lot of influence on how they run the country. <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/194.171.56.13|194.171.56.13]] ([[User talk:194.171.56.13|talk]]) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Swaziland's Territory Claims ==
Under the command of the regional ''magistri'' and ''comites'' were the ''duces'' in command of border forces in their sector. This was the case from at least the 360's onwards when the regional ''comitatus'' became permanent. Before that, the ''duces'' may have reported to the ''magistri'' of the imperial escort armies. In the time of Diocletian, the ''duces'' reported to the ''vicarius'' of their diocese.<ref>Jones (1964) 100, 609</ref>


In recent years we have seen [[Swaziland]] claiming some Territory from the [[Republic of South Africa]] and that the latter must give back the claimed territories so I want to know how far has Swaziland go in claiming the territories what measures are taken by Swaziland and if it can be possible to get the claimed land. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zikodze|Zikodze]] ([[User talk:Zikodze|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zikodze|contribs]]) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Outside the normal military chain of command were the ''scholae'', the emperors' personal cavalry escort. They did not belong to the ''comitatus praesentales'' and reported to the ''magister officiorum'', a civilian official.<ref>''Notitia Dignitatum'' Titles IX and XI</ref> However, this was probably only for administrative purposes. On campaign, the ''tribuni'' (regimental commanders) of the ''scholae'' probably reported direct to the emperor himself.<ref>Jones (1964) 613</ref> At the time of the ''Notitia'', each emperor, Eastern and Western, had his own corps of ''scholae''.


:As a practical matter, Swaziland is weaker in almost every respect than South Africa... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Bases ===
::Our Swaziland article doesn't seem to mention this matter? [[User:Rmhermen|Rmhermen]] ([[User talk:Rmhermen|talk]]) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


== Pashtun ==
''Comitatus'' troops and border troops had different accommodation arrangements. Most border units were based in forts as were their predecessors, the auxiliary regiments of the Principate (indeed, in many cases, the same forts).<ref>Mattingly (2006) 245</ref> Some of the larger ''limitanei'' units (''legiones'' and ''vexillationes'') were based in cities, probably in permanent barracks.<ref>Jones (1964) 631</ref>


I am confused. Are the Pashtun people of Pakistan are really Pashto-speaking Pakistanis or Afghanistan? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.204.74.18|142.204.74.18]] ([[User talk:142.204.74.18|talk]]) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
''Comitatus'' troops were also based in cities (when not on campaign: then they would be in temporary camps). But it seems that did not usually occupy purpose-built accommodation like the city-based ''limitanei''. From the legal evidence, it seems they were normally compulsorily billeted in private houses (''hospitalitas'').<ref>Jones (1964) 631&ndash;2</ref> This is because they often wintered in different provinces. The ''comitatus praesentales'' accompanied their respective emperors on campaign, while even the regional ''comitatus'' would change their winter quarters according to operational requirements. However, in the 5th century, emperors rarely campaigned in person, so the ''praesentales'' became more static in their winter bases.<ref>Elton (1996) 208</ref> The Western ''comitatus praesentalis'' normally was based in and around ''Mediolanum'' ([[Milan]]) and the two Eastern ''comitatus'' in the vicinity of Constantinople.<ref>Elton (1996) 208</ref>


:There are both Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pashtuns from Pakistan living in Pakistan -- but some Pashtuns think it would be a lot better to have a separate [[Pakhtunistan]] in place of the current Pakistan-Afghanistan border... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Regiments ===


::This situation isn't unusual, of course, and there are large numbers of such ''national minorities'' almost everywhere you look. The modern state of India has about 1,500 different languages within its borders. Most of the borders of Asia, as with the rest of the world, have been decided by conquest and/or by the convenience of colonial powers pulling out, only a very few by the wish for self-determination shown by indigenous people united by speaking a particular language. [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The changes to unit structure in the 4th century were reduction of unit sizes and increase in unit numbers, establishment of new unit types and establishment of a hierarchy of units more complex than the old one of legions and auxilia.<ref>Lee (1997) 214</ref>


== Baloch sindhi film industry ==
==== Unit sizes ====


There is no Baloch or Sindhi film industry in Pakistan? <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/142.204.74.18|142.204.74.18]] ([[User talk:142.204.74.18|talk]]) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
The evidence for the strength of late army units is very fragmented and equivocal.<ref name="t113">Tomlin (1988) 113</ref> The table below gives some recent estimates of unit strength, by unit type and grade:
:Sure there is. [[List of Sindhi-language films]] and [http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&safe=off&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=balochi+films&spell=1 this] google search should help. [[User:Fribbler|Fribbler]] ([[User talk:Fribbler|talk]]) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


== Cults ==
{| class = wikitable
|+ '''SIZE ESTIMATES FOR REGIMENTS IN 4th CENTURY ARMY'''<ref>Data from: Duncan-Jones (1990) 105&ndash;17; Elton (1996) 89; Goldsworthy (2003) 206; Mattingly (2006) 239</ref>
! Cavalry<br>unit type !! Comitatenses<br>''(inc. palatini)'' !! Limitanei !! XXXXX !! Infantry<br>unit type !! Comitatenses<br>''(inc. palatini)'' !! Limitanei
|-
|Ala
|
|120&ndash;500
|
|Auxilium
|400&ndash;1,200
|
|-
|Cuneus
|
|200&ndash;300
|
|Cohors
|
|160&ndash;500
|-
|Equites
|
|80&ndash;300
|
|Legio
|800&ndash;1,200
|500&ndash;1,000
|-
|Schola*
|500
|
|
|Milites
|
|200&ndash;300
|-
|Vexillatio
|400&ndash;600
|
|
|Numerus
|
|200&ndash;300
|}
* ''Scholae'' were not technically ''comitatenses''


I have a question about cults that has been puzzling me for a long time. I have read the article on [[cults]] and it's very informative but I still have some doubts. See cults may happen to be initiated by or grown around a single personality but they often continue after the founder is gone, the leadership taken by some other member. Now this new member also joined the group at some time, no doubt believing in the legitimacy of the cult's basic tenets. Now assuming we are talking about real "cults" (the kind that mislead people), how long does it take for a new member to be "in on the secret", and thus be in a position to run the cult? Secondly, why does he/she do it, why don't they just spill the beans... what motivates members to perpetuate the fraud? Take the case of scientology, Ron Hubbard may have started it out of whatever motivation, but how many of the group (obviously top of the hierarchy) know what the real deal is, when did they come to know about it, and why did they chose to perpetuate the myth? The question is why, how, and why do the "preys" (ones that were taken in by the chincanery) become the "predators" (that is ones who run the whole thing and attract new converts). Thank you very much. -- [[User:ReluctantPhilosopher|ReluctantPhilosopher]]([[User_talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]])
Much uncertainty remains, especially regarding the size of ''limitanei'' regiments, as can be seen by the wide ranges of the size estimates. It is also possible, if not likely, that unit strengths changed over the course of the 4th century. For example, it appears that Valentinian I split about 150 ''comitatus'' units with his brother and co-emperor Valens. The resulting units may have been just half the strength of the parent units (unless a major recruitment drive was held to bring them all up to original strength).<ref name="t113"/>
:The people who lead a cult after the death of the founder may well be true believers, even to the point of being martyrs for the cause, rather than the cynical con men you posit, who share the "secret" that it is a scam. Some cults really get going only after the founder is dead, and are spread by people who never met him. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::My question is about the cynical con men who share the secret. [[User:ReluctantPhilosopher|ReluctantPhilosopher]] ([[User talk:ReluctantPhilosopher|talk]]) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Only God knows the difference.--[[User:Wetman|Wetman]] ([[User talk:Wetman|talk]]) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


::::If those who take over are cynical con men or woman (and please note the "If"; I take no position on this), then, as with con men and woman in every field, the cult is merely the background or environment in which they operate their scam. A scam is a scam -in the boardroom, the church, a living room, a club. What the con person gets out of any one of them is a mix of personal power and prestige, along with worldy goods, all to feed a massive ego. [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
''Scholae'' are believed to have numbered ca. 500 on the basis of a 6th century reference.<ref>Jones (1964) 681</ref>


:Ahem. Stepping into it with both feet. See [[Paul the Apostle]]. <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In the ''comitatus'', there is consensus that ''vexillationes'' were ca. 500 and ''legiones'' ca. 1,000 strong. The greatest uncertainty concerns the size of the crack ''auxilia palatina'' infantry regiments, originally formed by Constantine. The evidence is contradictory, suggesting that these units could have been either ca. 500 or ca. 1,000 strong, or somewhere in between.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 206</ref><ref>Jones (1964) 684</ref> If the higher figure were true, then there would be little to distinguish ''auxilia'' from ''legiones'', which is the strongest argument in favour of ca. 500.


== what makes a new edition of a book? ==
For the size of ''limitanei'' units, opinion is divided. Jones and Elton suggest from the scarce and ambiguous literary evidence that border ''legiones'' numbered ca. 1,000 men and that the other units contained in the region of 500 men each.<ref>Jones (1964) 681&ndash;2</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref> Others draw on papyrus and more recent archaeological evidence to argue that ''limitanei'' units probably averaged about half the Jones/Elton strength i.e. ca. 500 for ''legiones'' and around 250 for other units.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 105&ndash;70</ref><ref>Mattingly (2006) 239</ref>


What constitutes a new edition of a book? We are discussing this at [[talk:Basic Chess Endings]]. The hardback book came out in 1941, and it was reprinted at least as late as 1960. Some of them had "second edition" and "fourth edition" although there was no change at all to the text. (I consider these reprints, not new editions.) Starting about 1969 to 1971 paperback copies were printed with exactly the same text. At least ten paperback printings were done. So if the text has not changed, can it be a new edition? (The book was revised in 2003.) [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
==== Unit types ====
===== Scholae =====
[[Image:PraesentalisII2.png|thumb|200px|right|Shield insignia of regiments under the command of the ''Magister Militum Praesentalis II'' of the [[East Roman army]] ca. 395. Page from the ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', a medieval copy of a Late Roman register of military commands]]
[[Image:Roman soldier 175 aC in northern province.jpg|thumb|right|200px|Reenactor wearing the typical equipment of a 3rd century foot soldier. The helmet is a Niederbieber type, with cross-pattern reinforcing ridges on the top of the bowl, and cheek-guards which can be fastened together. The sword is a [[spatha]] (median blade length 900 mm), used by the cavalry only in the 1st/2nd c. This soldier carries a ''spiculum'' , a heavy ''[[pilum]]''-type javelin. Note the [[chain mail]] (''[[lorica hamata]]'') shirt and oval shield. Clothing consisted of a long-sleeved tunic, trousers and boots. The equipment of a 4th century infantryman was very similar to the 3rd c., save that the ''spiculum'' was usually replaced by a heavy thrusting-spear (''[[hasta]]'') and the helmet was predominantly of the "[[Intercisa]] type"<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 209</ref> ]]
The ''scholae'' consisted, at the end of the 4th century, of five regiments (2,500 men) under the Western ''Augustus'' and seven (3,500) in the East. This compares with 2,000 ''equites singulares'' in the late 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 58</ref> 40 select troops from the ''scholae'', called ''candidati'' from their white uniforms, acted as the emperor's personal bodyguards.<ref>Jones (1964) 613</ref> All of the Western, and five of the Eastern, ''scholae'' were termed ''schola scutariorum;'' these were units of 'conventional' heavy cavalry, armoured in a manner similar to the ''alae'' of the Principate. The Eastern ''scholae'' included two specialised units: the ''schola scutariorum clibanariorum'' (first mentioned in 330 in legislation of Constantine I), of very heavily armoured cataphract cavalry, and the ''schola scutariorum sagittariorum,'' a unit of horse-archers.<ref>Wood, 368-369</ref>


: The (dictionary) meaning seems to stem from printing. An "[http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=impression impression]" is "one of a number of printings made at different times from the same set of type, without alteration (distinguished from edition)", whereas an "[http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/edition edition]" is "one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.". So, by that definition, it's a different edition if they substantially have to re-set the type. For example a big-print version is a "big print edition", even if the text is identical with its regular-type cousin. So changing the font, changing the chess diagrams to a different style, or adding a different prolog would make it a different edition, as would a revision of the text. I guess small fixes for typos and fixing printing snafus would be added between impressions without counting as an edition. Now whether the dictionary meaning really relates to a reasonable expectation that a modern consumer might have, that a new edition is a change so great that buying the book again might well be worthwhile, as another matter. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===== Comitatenses (inc. palatini) =====


:: Thanks. From the original publication in 1941 until the revision in 2003, the only thing that changed was hardcover to softcover, the cover, and the page that gives the copyright, the revision date, the printing number, and the ISBN. So in my mind, these were all the same edition. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In the ''comitatus'' armies (both escort and regional) cavalry regiments were known as ''vexillationes'', infantry regiments as either ''legiones'' or ''auxilia''.<ref>Elton (1996) 89</ref> ''Auxilia'' were only graded as ''palatini'', emphasising their elite status, while the other two are graded either ''palatini'' or ''comitatenses''.<ref>Jones (1964) 610</ref>


::: Ah, the ISBN. To normal people an ISBN is just a dumb number than you use to order a book at the library. To people in publishing land an ISBN is a magic key that makes book projects live (publishing projects spring into life when someone orders the ISBN, ISBN is the billing code that everyone uses to bill each other during prepress, and of course ISBN is what everyone calls a book when ordering it). So if you're a publisher and you want to get someone to print a book for you, they probably want you to give them an ISBN for it ('cos their systems all work off ISBNs). If you're publishing an old book (from the ancient times before ISBN) then you order an ISBN for it and that's what you have them print it under. But now there's one (or more) ''kinds'' of the book hanging around in the world that ''don't'' have that ISBN, and your new one that does. As you can't go back and write an ISBN on all those extant copies, I guess you ''call'' the new one "2nd edition", just to differentiate it. But that doesn't seem to explain your BCE problem, as it has different versions (which may, but probably aren't, editions) some with ISBNs and some without. Perhaps "edition" for this case isn't going to help disambiguate, and if you want to refer to a specific version you need to do so by printing too. -- [[User:Finlay McWalter|Finlay McWalter]] | [[User talk:Finlay McWalter|Talk]] 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The majority of Roman cavalry regiments in the ''comitatus'' (61%) remained of the traditional semi-armoured type, similar in equipment and tactical role to the ''alae'' of the Principate and suitable for mêlée combat. These regiments carry a variety of titles: ''comites'', ''equites scutarii'', ''equites stablesiani'' or ''equites promoti''. These titles are probably purely honorary, and do not indicate different unit types or functions.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> 24% of regiments were unarmoured light cavalry, denoted ''equites Dalmatae'', ''Mauri'' or ''sagittarii'' (mounted archers), suitable for harassment and pursuit. [[Mauri]] light horse had served Rome as auxiliaries since the [[Second Punic War]] 500 years before. ''Equites Dalmatae'', on the other hand, seem to have been regiments first raised in the 3rd century. 15% of ''comitatus'' cavalry regiments were heavily armoured ''[[cataphracti]]'' or ''[[clibanarii]]'', which were suitable for the shock charge (all but one such squadrons are listed as ''comitatus'' regiments by the ''Notitia'')<ref>Elton (1996) 106</ref>


: A self-publishing service Lulu has the following criteria: If you make the following types of major changes, it is considered a new edition:
Infantry regiments mostly fought in close order as did their Principate forbears. Infantry equipment was broadly similar to the that of auxiliaries in the 2nd century, with some modifications (see [[#Equipment|Equipment]], below).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref>
* Adding, removing or moving text
* Adding or removing chapters or an index
* Changing the sequence of chapters
* Dramatically changing your cover design
[[User:MaxVT|MaxVT]] ([[User talk:MaxVT|talk]]) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:: In this case, none of that happened except changing the cover design. My hardback copy doesn't have a dust jacket, and I don't know what the dust jacket looked like. Then there were at least three versions of the paperback version cover before the 2003 revision. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] [[User talk:Bubba73|(talk)]], 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===== Limitanei =====


== The Electoral College ==
In the ''limitanei'' forces, most types of regiment were present. For infantry, there are regiments called ''milites'', ''numeri'' and ''auxilia'' as well as old-style ''legiones'' and ''cohortes''. Cavalry regiments are called ''equites'', ''cunei'' and old-style ''alae''.<ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref>


To Whom it May Concern
The evidence is that ''comitatenses'' regiments were considered of higher quality than ''limitanei''. But the difference should not be exaggerated. Suggestions have been made that the ''limitanei'' were a part-time [[militia]] of local farmers, of poor combat capability. <ref>Luttwak (1976) 173</ref> This view is rejected by many modern scholars.<ref>Jones (1964) 649&ndash;51</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 99</ref><ref>Lee (1997) 234</ref> The evidence is that ''limitanei'' were full-time professionals.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 172</ref> They were charged with combating the incessant small-scale barbarian raids that were the empire's enduring security problem.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 203</ref> It is therefore likely that their combat readiness and experience were high. This was demonstrated at the siege of Amida (359) where the besieged frontier legions resisted the Persians with great skill and tenacity.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 112</ref> Elton suggests that the lack of mention in the sources of barbarian incursions less than 400-strong implies that such were routinely dealt with by the border forces without the need of assistance from the ''comitatus''.<ref>Elton (1996) 206</ref> ''Limitanei'' regiments often joined the ''comitatus'' for specific campaigns, sometimes remaining long-term with the title of ''pseudocomitatenses'', implying adequate combat capability.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 172</ref>


I heard the following and would like to know if it is indeed factual:
===== Specialists =====


With regards to the Electoral College, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant.
The late Roman army contained a significant number of heavily armoured cavalry called ''[[cataphracts|cataphracti]]'' (from the Greek ''kataphraktos'', meaning "covered all over"). These were covered from neck to foot by [[scale armour|scale]] and/or [[lamellar armour|lamellar]], and their horses were often armoured also. Cataphracts carried a long, heavy lance called a ''[[contus]]'', ca. 3.65&nbsp;m long, that was held in both hands. Some also carried bows.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 139</ref> The central tactic of cataphracts was the shock charge, which aimed to break the enemy line by concentrating overwhelming force on a defined section of it. A type of cataphract called a ''[[clibanarius]]'' also appears in the 4th century record. This term may de derived from Greek ''klibanos'' (a bread oven) or from a Persian word. It is likely that ''clibanarius'' is simply an alternative term to cataphract, or it may have been a special type of cataphract.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> This type of cavalry had been developed by the Iranic horse-based nomadic tribes of the Eurasian [[steppes]] from the 6th-century BCE onwards: the [[Scythians]] and their kinsmen the [[Sarmatians]]. The type was adopted by the [[Parthians]] in the 1st century BCE and later by the Romans, who needed it to counter Parthians in the East and the Sarmatians along the Danube.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 213</ref> The first regiment of Roman cataphracts to appear in the archaeological record is the ''ala I Gallorum et Pannoniorum cataphractaria'', attested in [[Pannonia]] in the early 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 138</ref> Although Roman cataphracts were not new, they were far more numerous in the late army, with most regiments stationed in the East.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref>


Now, I know that in 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral while losing the ‘popular’ vote, but neither candidate had a majority as Ralph Nader had several million votes. My question is can a candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote, or the majority of the popular vote, lose the election? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/69.66.105.156|69.66.105.156]] ([[User talk:69.66.105.156|talk]]) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Archer units are denoted in the ''Notitia'' by the term ''equites sagittarii'' (mounted archers) and ''sagittarii'' (foot archers, from ''sagitta'' = "arrow"). As in the Principate, it is likely that many non-''sagittarii'' regiments also contained some archers. Mounted archers appear to have been exclusively in light cavalry units.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> Archer units, both foot and mounted, were present in the ''comitatus''.<ref>''Notitia'' Oriens.V</ref> In the border forces, only mounted archers are listed in the ''Notitia'', which may indicate that many ''limitanei'' infantry regiments contained their own archers.<ref>e.g. ''Notitia'' Oriens.XXXI</ref>


:Yes. It is even possible (though won't happen) that a candidate can receive zero votes from the people but still win the election. There is no Federal requirement that electoral votes be based on the votes of the people. I feel that I should also point out that there is no such thing as the "popular vote." People are not voting for a Presidential candidate. They are voting for an ''elector'' who will cast a vote for a Presidential candidate. So, if I vote a South Carolina elector and you vote for a Missouri elector, we are voting for two different people even though our electors may be voting for the same candidate. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A distinctive feature of the late army is the appearance of independent units of artillery, which during the Principate appears to have been integral to the legions. Called ''ballistarii'' (from ''ballista'' = "catapult"), seven such units are listed in the ''Notitia'', all but one belonging to the ''comitatus''. But a number are denoted ''pseudocomitatenses'', implying that they originally belonged to the border forces. The purpose of independent artillery units was presumably to permit heavy concentration of firepower, especially useful for sieges. However it is likely that many ordinary regiments continued to possess integral artillery, especially in the border forces.<ref>Elton (1996) 105</ref>


::What I understand from that is that the only vote that really matters is the electoral college vote; hence, if any vote is "irrelevant", it's the popular vote. Wouldn't the answer therefore be "No", rather than "Yes"? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The ''Notitia'' lists a few units of presumably light infantry with names denoting specialist function: ''superventores'' ("interceptors"), ''exculcatores'' ("trackers"), ''exploratores'' ("scouts"). At the same time, Ammianus describes light-armed troops with various terms: ''velites'', ''leves armaturae'', ''exculcatores'', ''expediti''. It is unclear from the context whether any of these were independent units, specialist sub-units, or indeed just detachments of ordinary troops specially armed for a particular operation.<ref>Elton (1996) 104</ref> The ''Notitia'' evidence implies that, at least in some cases, Ammianus could be referring to independent units.


:::To be clear, a candidate may have more than 50% of the population vote for an elector that is sworn to vote for that candidate and still lose the election by not having enough electors to win the election. Depending on the state, the number of people per elector is different. In heavily populated states, you get more people per elector. In less populated states, there are less people per elector. That is why there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between people's votes and elector's votes. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
===== ''Foederati'' =====


::::The electoral college is composed of the electors chosed by each state who convene together to themselves choose the president. Now, the U.S. Constitution leaves it up to each state as to how that state chooses its electors. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for all of the electors to simply be appointed by the governor, with no voting at all done by the people. Popular elections are only required in order to elect members of the [[U.S. House of Representatives|House]] (in the original Constitution) and the [[U.S. Senate|Senate]] (since the 17th ammendment in 1913). The constitution does require that all states vote for national offices and for electors on the same day, but such a requirement could still be carried out such that the Governor of the state would announce the slate of electors on Election day, without any attempt at a popular election. The fact that every state holds popular elections to determine how their electors are appointed is a ''de facto'' reality, but it is not in any way required by law at the Federal level.--[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Outside the regular army were substantial numbers of allied forces, generally known as ''foederati'' (from ''foedus'' = "treaty") or ''symmachi'' in the East. The latter were forces supplied either by barbarian chiefs under their treaty of alliance with Rome or ''dediticii''.<ref>Jones (1964) 611</ref> Such forces were employed by the Romans throughout imperial history e.g. the battle scenes from [[Trajan's Column]] in Rome show that ''foederati'' troops played an important part in the [[Dacian Wars]] (101&ndash;6).<ref>Rossi (1971) 104</ref>


:Yes. Furthermore, it's happened. In the [[United States presidential election, 1876]], Democrat [[Samuel Jones Tilden]] received 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost to Republican [[Rutherford Birchard Hayes]] (47.9%) in the electoral college, 184 to 185. -- [[Special:Contributions/128.104.112.147|128.104.112.147]] ([[User talk:128.104.112.147|talk]]) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In the 4th century, these forces were organised into ill-defined units based on a single ethnic group called ''[[numerus|numeri]]'' ("troops", although ''numerus'' was also the name of a regular infantry unit).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 204</ref> They served alongside the regular army for the duration of particular campaigns or for a specified period. Normally their service would be limited to the region where the tribe lived, but sometimes could be deployed elsewhere.<ref>Jones (1964) 611&ndash;2</ref>They were commanded by their own leaders. It is unclear whether they used their own weapons and armour or the standard equipment of the Roman army. The more useful and long-serving ''numeri'' appear to have been absorbed into the regular late army, rapidly becoming indistinguishable from other units.<ref>Elton (1996) 92</ref>
:: 1876 was a special case because in at least 2 states, there were disputed returns; much like Florida in 2000. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme court who abdicated responsibility, and appointed a 5 member commission to decide the fate of the election. The commission ended up 3-2 republican, so the gave the disputed electors to Hayes, the republican. The election could have easily gone the other way. As other examples, there have been other cases of elections where there were some electoral college problems:
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1800]], under very different election rules, there was a dead tie for the presidency between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, so it went to the House of Reps to choose. It took 36 ballots and a deal brokered by Alexander Hamilton to decide in favor of Jefferson over Burr. Burr would later famously shoot Hamilton over the issue. As far as popular vote, most states didn't hold a popular election to decide electors, and they were merely appointed by state legislatures, so it is impossible to say who got the most popular votes. As a result, the electoral college was reorganized under the [[Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution]].
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1824]] four candidates split the vote, with Andrew Jackson holding a plurality, but not the 50+% majority of all electoral votes needed to win. The decision then went to the House of Reps again. Under the rules of the constitution, only the top 3 candidates get to be voted on by the house. The fourth place candidate, Henry Clay, hated Jackson and used his influence as speaker of the House to give the election to Adams, who had neither a plurality of the electoral college votes nor of the popular vote (at least in those states that held a popular vote. Several in 1824 still left it to the legislatures to appoint the electors).
::*In [[United States presidential election, 1960]], was a very confusing one from an electoral college standing. Kennedy carried 22 states to Nixon's 26 states, and only won the popular vote by less than a tenth of a percent, and had only a 49.7% plurality of the popular vote. However, Kennedy carried all of the "big states" except for Nixon's home state of California. The election is noted for allegations of widespread voter fraud, as the close race in Illinois was largely decided by Chicago, whose mayor Richard Daley was a staunch Democrat. Also, several Democratic party electors pledged to Kennedy refused to vote for a northerner, and instead cast their ballots for Harry Byrd.
::* Like 1960, the [[United States presidential election, 1888]] neither candidate had a majority of the votes, though Grover Cleveland had the clear plurality over Benjamin Harrison, (0.8% advantage) in the popular vote, Harrison won more electoral college votes. As a quirk, Cleveland, who won every state south of the Mason Dixon, didn't even win his home state of New York.
::Just some food for thought heading into the 2008 election... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


== Recruitment ==
=== Romans ===


::The state legislature could appoint anyone to appoint the electors, or they could order a coin toss, or drawing for high card, or a foot race, or any other means to decide whose slate of electors gets to cast the state's electoral votes. They just have to establish a process then follow it. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
During the Principate, it appears that most recruits, both legionary and auxiliary, were volunteers (''voluntarii''). Compulsory conscription (''dilectus'') was never wholly abandoned, but was generally only used in emergencies or before major campaigns when large numbers of additional troops were required.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 77</ref> In marked contrast, the late army relied mainly on compulsion for its recruitment of Roman citizens. Firstly, the sons of serving soldiers or veterans were required by law to enlist. Secondly, a regular annual levy was held based on the ''indictio'' (land tax assessment). Depending on the amount of land tax due on his estates, a landowner (or group of landowners) would be required to provide a commensurate number of recruits to the army.<ref>Jones (1964) </ref> Naturally, landowners had a strong incentive to keep their best young men to work on their estates, sending the less fit or reliable for military service. There is also evidence that they tried to cheat the draft by offering the sons of soldiers (who were liable to serve anyway) and vagrants (''vagi'') to fulfil their quota.<ref name="j615">Jones (1964) 615</ref>


== Senators Obama and McCain, after the election ==
However, conscription was not in practice universal. Firstly, a land-based levy meant recruits were exclusively the sons of peasants, as opposed to townspeople.<ref name="j615"/> Thus some 20% of the empire's population was excluded.<ref>Mattingly (2006) 356</ref> In addition, as during the Principate, slaves were not admissible. Nor were freedmen and persons in certain occupations such as bakers and innkeepers. In addition, provincial officials and ''curiales'' (city council members) could not enlist. These rules were relaxed only in emergencies, as during the military crisis of 405&ndash;6 ([[Radagaisus]]' invasion of Italy and the great barbarian invasion of Gaul).<ref>Jones (1964) 614</ref> Most importantly, the conscription requirement was often commuted into a cash levy, at a fixed rate per recruit due. This was done for certain provinces, in certain years, although the specific details are largely unknown. It appears from the very slim available evidence that conscription was not applied evenly across provinces but concentrated heavily in the army's traditional recruiting areas of Gaul (including the two ''Germaniae'' provinces along the Rhine) and the Danubian provinces, with other regions presumably often commuted. An analysis of the known origins of ''comitatenses'' in the period 350&ndash;476 shows that in the Western army, the Illyricum and Gaul dioceses together provided 52% of total recruits. Overall the Danubian regions provided nearly half of the whole army's recruits, despite containing only three of the 12 dioceses.<ref>Elton (1996) 134</ref> This picture is much in line with the 2nd century position.<ref>''Roman Diplomas Online'' Introduction</ref>


If Obama wins, will McCain still be a Senator? If McCain wins, will Obama still be a Senator? If so to both, for whichever becomes President, who will take their Senate seat? --[[Special:Contributions/140.247.249.14|140.247.249.14]] ([[User talk:140.247.249.14|talk]]) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Prospective recruits had to undergo an examination. Recruits had to be 20&ndash;25 years of age, a range that was extended to 19&ndash;35 in the later 4th century. Recruits had to be physically fit and meet the traditional minimum height requirement of 6 [[Roman foot|Roman feet]] (5ft 10in, 175cm) until 367, when it was reduced to 5 Roman feet and 3 [[Ancient Roman units of measurement|Roman palm]]s (5ft 7in, 167cm).<ref>Jones (1964) 614, 616</ref>


:Losing a Presidential election does not eject you from the Senate. Becoming President does. The state will hold a special election to elect a new Senator (similar to what would happen if a Senator left office for any other reason). This makes me think... Which one do you want as President just walking around and giving speeches and which one do you want in the Senate writing and passing laws? -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Once a recruit was accepted, he was branded to facilitate recognition if he attempted to desert. The recruit was then issued with an identification disk (which was worn around the neck) and a certificate of enlistment (''probatoria''). He was then assigned to a unit. A law of 375 required those with superior fitness to be assigned to the ''comitatenses''.<ref>Jones (1964) 617</ref> In the 4th century, the minimum length of service was 20 years (24 years in some ''limitanei'' units).<ref name="g208">Goldsworthy (2003) 208</ref> This compares with 25 years in both legions and auxilia during the Principate.
::For example, [[John F. Kennedy]] was elected president in November 1960, then resigned his Senate seat on December 22. Massachusetts Governor [[Foster Furcolo]] appointed [[Benjamin A. Smith II]] to serve in his place, until the next possible election, when JFK's brother [[Ted Kennedy]] was elected.
:::The [[Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution|17th Amendment]] allows the governor to fill an opening until an election. '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I understand that a senator/representative who wins the presidency must resign before 20 January in order to be eligible to be sworn in. But can they be forced to resign? If Obama wins, say, then changes his mind about the presidency and chooses not to resign as a senator, what would happen? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::Reading the constitution literally, I think he stops being a senator. There is provision for the resignation of a president (originally in [[Article II of the United States Constitution|Article II]], Section 1, now in the [[25th Amendment to the United States Constitution|25th Amendment]]), but not for a president-elect. The articles about electing a president via the electoral college (also originally II.1, now in the [[12th Amendment to the United States Constitution|12th Amendment]]) say that the candidate winning the electoral vote "shall be the president", and if the election goes to the House of Representatives, then they "shall choose the president".<nowiki>
The widespread use of conscription, the compulsory recruitment of soldiers' sons, the relaxation of age and height requirements and the branding of recruits all add up to a picture of an army that had severe difficulties in finding, and retaining, sufficient recruits.<ref>Lee (1997) 221&ndash;2</ref> Recruitment difficulties are confirmed in the legal code evidence: there are measures to deal with cases of self-mutilation to avoid military service (such as cutting off a thumb), including an extreme decree of 386 requiring such persons to be burnt alive.<ref name="g208"/> Desertion was clearly a serious problem, and was probably much worse than in the Principate army, since the latter was mainly a volunteer army. This is supported by the fact that the granting of leave of absence (''commeatus'') was more strictly regulated. While in the 2nd century, a soldier's leave was granted at the discretion of his regimental commander, in the 4th century, leave could only be granted by a far senior corps commander (''dux'', ''comes'' or ''magister militum'').<ref>Birley (2002)</ref><ref>Jones (1964) 633</ref> In addition, it appears that ''comitatus'' units were typically one-third understrength.<ref>Elton 1996) 89</ref> The massive disparity between official and actual strength is powerful evidence of recruitment problems. Against this, Elton argues that the late army did not have serious recruitment problems, on the basis of the large numbers of exemptions from concription granted.<ref>Elton (1996) 154</ref>
</nowiki> But [[Article I of the United States Constitution|Article I]], Section 6, requires that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." If he's required to become president, but he's also required not to be both a senator and the president, then it logically follows that his term as senator is terminated.


:::::(And before someone says "what if he refused to take the presidential oath of office" -- that would not stop someone from becoming president; it would just mean that he couldn't exercise his powers of office. The requirement for an oath or affirmation (also in II.1) specifically relates to "the Execution of his Office", not to becoming president. [[Zachary Taylor|One president]], in an era where it was not feared that a war could [[first strike|arise in a matter of minutes]], preferred not to take the oath on a Sunday, so he just waited until Monday.)
=== Barbarians ===


:::::But the US has a long history of interpreting their constitution in ways other than reading what it literally says, which means that we won't ever know for sure unless this situation actually happens and any resulting legal cases have been settled. And of course we cannot give legal advice here, so if the original poster is Obama or McCain, he therefore had better ignore this thread altogether. --Anonymous, 22:30 UTC, edited 22:41, October 8, 2008.
''Barbari'' ("[[barbarians]]") was the generic term used by the Romans to denote peoples resident beyond the borders of the empire, and best translates as "foreigners" (it is derived from a Greek word meaning "to babble": a reference to their outlandish tongues).


::::::That's very enlightening, Anon. If the termination of their service as a senator occurs automatically, why don't they just let that process take its course rather than actively resigning? Is it because they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and the Congress some time before they take on the president's job? -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Most scholars believe that significant numbers of ''barbari'' were recruited throughout the Principate by the auxilia (the legions were closed to non-citizens).<ref> Heather (2005) 119</ref><ref name="g208"/> However, there is little evidence of this before the 3rd century. The scant evidence suggests that the vast majority, if not all, of auxilia were Roman [[Peregrinus (Roman)|peregrini]] (second-class citizens) or Roman citizens.<ref>''Roman Military Diplomas'' Vols IV and V: Personnel tables</ref> In any case, the 4th century army was probably much more dependent on barbarian recruitment than its 1st/2nd century predecessor. The evidence for this may be summarised as follows:


:::::::One very good reason to resign: seniority. A new congressman / senator who takes office a day before another new legislator has seniority, and that often makes a difference in things like committee membership and leadership. [[User:DOR (HK)|DOR (HK)]] ([[User talk:DOR (HK)|talk]]) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
# The ''Notitia'' lists a number of barbarian military settlements in the empire. Known as ''[[laeti]]'' or ''gentiles'' ("natives"), these were an important source of recruits for the army. Groups of Germanic or Sarmatian tribespeople were granted land to settle in the Empire, in return for military service. Most likely each ommunity was under a treaty obligation to supply a specified number of troops to the army each year.<ref name="g208"/> The resettlement within the empire of barbarian tribespeople in return for military service was not a new phenomenon in the 4th century: it stretches back to the days of Augustus. <ref>[[Tacitus]], ''Germania'' 28; Dio Cassius, LXXI.11</ref> But it does appear that the establishment of military settlements was more systematic and on a much larger scale in the 4th century.<ref>Lee (1997) 222&ndash;3</ref>
::Last time I checked, President of the US wasn't a ceremonial position. They do far more than give speeches - they can veto the laws passed by congress, for a start. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
# The ''Notitia'' lists a large number of units with barbarian names. This was probably the result of the transformation of irregular allied units serving under their own native officers (known as ''socii'', or ''foederati'') into regular formations. During the Principate, regular units with barbarian names are not attested until the 3rd century and even then rarely e.g. the ''ala I Sarmatarum'' attested in 3rd century Britain, doubtless an offshoot of the Sarmatian horsemen posted there in 175.<ref>www.roman-britain.org ''Table of auxiliary regiments''</ref>
# The emergence of significant numbers of senior officers with barbarian names in the regular army, and eventually in the high command itself. In the early 5th century, the Western Roman forces were often controlled by barbarian-born generals, such as [[Arbogast]], [[Stilicho]] and [[Ricimer]].<ref>Zosimus books IV, V</ref>
# The adoption by the 4th century army of barbarian (especially Germanic) dress, customs and culture, suggesting enhanced barbarian influence. For example, Roman army units adopted mock barbarian names e.g. Cornuti = "horned ones", a reference to the German custom of attaching horns to their helmets, and the ''barritus'', a German warcry. Long hair became fashionable, especially in the ''palatini'' regiments, where barbarian-born recruits were numerous.<ref>Lee (1997) </ref>


:::You are correct. It is also the President's job to take the blame for all the laws passed by Congress. Seriously, the President is not powerless. He is simply the least powerful of the three branches of government - as expressed in many Presidential memoirs. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Quantification of the proportion of barbarian-born troops in the 4th century army is highly speculative. Elton has the most detailed analysis of the meagre evidence. According to this, about a quarter of the sample of army officers was barbarian-born in the period 350&ndash;400. Analysis by decade shows that this proportion did not increase over the period, or indeed in the early 5th century. The latter trend implies that the proportion of barbarians in the lower ranks was not much greater, otherwise the proportion of barbarian officers would have increased over time to reflect that.<ref>Elton (1996) 148&ndash;9</ref>
::::The recent goings on have reminded me that, while the President can veto laws he doesn't like, he cannot insist on laws he ''does'' want coming into force. -- [[User:JackofOz|JackofOz]] ([[User talk:JackofOz|talk]]) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Which, amusingly enough, means that the vast majority of campaign speeches are essentially pointless- the federal government has no control over education, anyway, so that's out, the President can't directly influence laws, so any of his/her policies on the economy/oil/whatever are also out... pretty much the only thing the candidates are arguing on that they might actually be able to do something about is the Iraq war, because the President is commander-in-chief. --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: (EC with above)The President is VERY powerful, if you consider that he has great leeway and control over appointments of the entire adminsitrative structure of the government, from the Justice department to State Department to the Joint Chiefs. He's essentially the CEO of the gigantic bureaucracy, and he has considerable power over how that bureaucracy operates. Congress may pass laws, but the executive puts them into action as it sees fit, and that is considerable power. The current administration even believes it has the power to [[signing statements|ignore sections of laws it just doesn't like]] or to [[Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy|fire civil servants for not toeing the party line]]. Insofar as no other part of the government has made any attempt to curb this power, the President has it... --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::: (response to Alinnisawest). Actually, the federal government has considerable power over just about any part of the nation that it wants to, via [[Power of the purse]]. Basically, our government already partially funds everything that the states do, from education to road construction, and while it cannot change laws of states, it can refuse to provide federal money to states that don't pass the laws that it wants. For all intents and purposes, that means that it can do whatever it wants with regard to passing laws.<nowiki>
If the proportion of barbarians was in the region of 25%, then it is probably much higher than in the 2nd century regular army. If the same proportion had been recruited into the auxilia of the 2nd century army, then in excess of 40% of recruits would have been barbarian-born, since the auxilia constituted 60% of the regular land army.<ref>Holder (2003) 145</ref> There is no evidence that recruitment of barbarians was on such a large scale in the 2nd century.<ref>Holder (1980) 109&ndash;24</ref> An analysis of named soldiers of non-Roman origin shows that 75% were Germanic: [[Franks]], [[Alamanni]], [[Saxons]], [[Goths]], and [[Vandals]] are attested in the ''Notitia'' unit names.<ref>Elton (1996) 136</ref> Other significant sources of recruits were the [[Sarmatians]] from the Danubian lands; and [[Armenians]], and [[Caucasian Iberians|Iberians]] from the [[Caucasus]] region.<ref>Jones (1964) 619</ref>
</nowiki> While its power may be theoretically limited via the Constitution, it can, for example, withhold federal money for highway construction if states refuse to abide by a national speedlimit (it actually did this in the 1970's) or it can refuse to provide federal money for schools that do not meet arbitrary testing standards ([[No Child Left Behind]] legislation under the current administration) even though BOTH of these provisions are techinically left entirely for the states to decide for themselves. States could defy the federal government, but it would be financial suicide to do so, as states need this federal funding to operate. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::: I've heard it said (that most quoted of sources!) that the Federal strings cost more than the cash to which they're attached, but any State legislator who gets serious about declining the deal is leaned on hard by the national parties. —[[User:Tamfang|Tamfang]] ([[User talk:Tamfang|talk]]) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


::::::::I expect that circumstances might occur under which a candidate "wins" but does not become President. The electoral vote totals might not be certified, due to objections and obstructionism in the Joint Session of Congress where the votes are counted. One might say thet he is not "elected" until the January 6 Joint Session says he is, but the opinion of the public and historians might be that a majority of electoral votes where in fact cast for him, meaning that he was "elected" for all purposes except for the actions of Congress. There are scenarios where the Senate elects a Vice President but the House is deadlocked and does not elect a President. The Senator in question might choose to remain in his Senate seat if there was no prospect for the House electing him or the Joint Session confirming the actions of the Electoral College. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
In contrast to Roman recruits, the vast majority of barbarian recruits were probably volunteers, drawn by conditions of service and career prospects that to them probably appeared desirable, in contrast to their living conditions at home. A minority of barbarian recruits were enlisted by compulsion, namely ''dediticii'' (barbarians who surrendered to the Roman authorities, often to escape strife with neighbouring tribes) and tribes who were defeated by the Romans, and obliged, as a condition of peace, to undertake to provide a specified number of recruits annually. Barbarians could be recruited directly, as individuals enrolled into regular regiments, or indirectly, as members of irregular ''foederati'' units transformed into regular regiments.<ref>Jones (1964) 619&ndash;20</ref>
:I can't believe I just read that the executive branch is the least powerful. Just, wow. See [[Imperial Presidency]], or alternatively, the last eight years. --[[User:TotoBaggins|Sean]] 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::Right. Much of the federal government flows from the power of the executive (appointments, etc.—[[Michael D. Brown]], anyone?), and the executive is in charge of nominating candidates to many aspects of the judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court). Congress has oversight over some of this but the power to nominate already balances things towards the executive. All of this ignores even more overt forms of power like Executive Orders. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


:::The President can appoint people to various positions in government (ie: the Supreme Court), but Congress has to allow it. Unlike the Presidential veto, if Congress says "no", it is a solid "no." The President cannot override it. You will have cases where Congress opts to not decide - which is nothing more than a very passive aggressive way of deciding "yes." The President is also the Commander in Chief, but Congress holds the money. Could Bush have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without cash? Of course not. Congress allowed the invasions by voting to pay for them. Again, Congress has the power to say "no" to the President and the President is powerless to override it. When it comes to Executive Orders, Congress can come in again and impeach the President (or just give him a big raspberry) if they don't like it. They can even pass a law to make the actions of the executive order illegal - putting a stop to it. The President can veto the law, but Congress can override the veto and have the last word. When it really comes down to it, Congress has the ability to say "no" to the President and the President has to work hard at weaselling a way to get what he wants. The President can veto Congress, but Congress can easily override the veto if they want to. What really bugs me about all of this is that even if you consider the balance of power to be 50/50 (which it is clear I do not), why do we spend 99.9999999% of the time debating the Presidential election and ignore the Congressional elections? We don't even have signs or commercials for my local Congressional elections. Most people I know don't even know who our Senators/Representatives are -- and they wonder how this state kept reelecting Thurmond until he petrified. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
== Ranks, pay and benefits ==
::::The fact is that the President can keep nominating people he or she wants until the end of time. Congress never get to nominate. That's a lot of power right there. Congress can say no. When it does so there is often a lot of controversy. It's harder for them to say no than it is to say yes, and the President still gets to pick the people they have to say yes or no to. I'd say the Executive still wields most of the power there, even if Congress does have some oversight. Ditto with power of the purse—yes, it's true that Congress has the power to not fund wars, but they do so at their own political peril (and even then Presidents have found ways to fund activities that Congress has explicitly prohibited them from doing—e.g. [[Iran-Contra]]).
=== Common soldiers ===
::::As for Congressional elections.. it depends where you are. Some places are such strongholds for one party or the other than without some sort of major event or upheaval there's really no pressure to run a hard popular campaign. In some places they are heavily, heavily debated. And of course in some places there aren't even elections this term. In the case of South Carolina, the likelihood of a Democrat winning is so low as to make it not worth the time to campaign heavily, I'd imagine. The national party no doubt feels the efforts and resources in this regard should be concentrated on closer elections. --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
{{FixHTML|beg}}
[[Image:Villa11(js).jpg|thumb|right|Detail of a 4th century mosaic showing a hunting scene. The figures are probably Roman military officers, wearing the typical non-combat uniform (i.e. without armour and helmets, but with shield and spear) of late soldiers. (Throughout the imperial era, soldiers were usually portrayed in non-combat mode).<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 118</ref> Note the off-white, long-sleeved tunics. The [[swastika]] embroidered on the left tunic was a mystical symbol, probably of [[Indo-European]] origin, representing the universe and was commonly used by the Romans as a decorative motif. Note also the military cloak (''chlamys'') and trousers. The pattern on the shield indicated the bearer's regiment. Note the bands embroidered on the sleeves and shoulders. From [[Piazza Armerina]], Sicily]]
[[Image:Arco di Costantino (Roma) - Sacrificio a Diana.jpg|thumb|right|Frieze (bottom) showing Constantine I's cavalry drive Maxentius' infantry into the river [[Tiber]] at the [[Battle of the Milvian Bridge]] (312). Note that the infantry are wearing chain mail armour. The cavalry are not, but this is probably to distinguish between the two sides. Detail from the [[Arch of Constantine]], Rome]]
[[Image:Istanbul - Ippodromo - Spettatori - Soldati - Base obelisco Teodosio 01.jpg|thumb|right|Late Roman soldiers as depicted (back row) by bas-relief on the base of [[Theodosius I]]'s obelisk in [[Constantinople]] (ca. 390). The troops belong to a regiment of [[Palatini (Roman military)|palatini]] as they are here detailed to guard the emperor (left). Note the necklaces with regimental pendants and the long hair, a style imported by barbarian recruits, in contrast to the short hair norm of the Principate]]
[[Image:Forum Theodosius Istanbul March 2008 (18) detail.JPG|thumb|right|Detail of bas-relief on base of former Column of Theodosius in Constantinople (Istanbul). Date ca. 390. Roman soldiers in action. Note soldier at centre had an [[Intercisa]]-style helmet with iron crest (prob. indicating officer rank) and is wearing chain-mail or scale armour, evidence that [[Vegetius]]'s claim that infantry dropped helmets and armour in the later 4th c. is mistaken. [[Istanbul Archaeological Museum]]]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
[[Image:PICT0712small.jpg|thumb|right|Reenactor as late Roman infantryman, wearing a [[Burgh Castle]]-type ridge helmet with nose-guard. It was a more protective design than the contemporary, and probably more common, Intercisa type. Note the off-white tunic with sleeve borders, modelled on the Piazza Armerina mosaics]]
[[Image:2004 sutton hoo 03.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Reenactor wearing a replica of the ornate parade helmet found in the [[Anglo-Saxon]] royal burial site at [[Sutton Hoo]]. The helmet is of the [[spangenhelm]] type, common among Romans and barbarians from the 5th c. onwards. It shows two common features of 3rd/4th c. cavalry helmets: cheek-guards that cover the ears, providing better protection at the cost of reduced range of hearing, and deep neck-guard. The hinged face-guard became more common in the later 4th/5th c. The rest of the equipment is similar to that of a 4th century foot soldier.<ref name="g203">Goldsworthy (2003) 203</ref> 6th century original in [[British Museum]], London]]
{{FixHTML|mid}}
{{Externalimage
|align=right
|width=210px
|image1=[http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/paintingcataphract.jpg Roman cataphract cavalryman]<ref>http://www.le.ac.uk/ar/stj/ ''Retrieved'' 7 February 2008</ref>
|image2=[http://i85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/horse7.jpg Reenactor as Roman cataphract]<ref>http://s85.photobucket.com/albums/k75/dogpng1/KOLR/ ''Retrieved'' 7 February 2008</ref>
|image3=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image013.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman staff slinger]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
|image4=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image011.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman archer]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
|image5=[http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes_files/image009.jpg Reenactor as Late Roman skirmisher with javelins]<ref>http://www.comitatus.net/trooptypes.htm ''Retrieved'' 6 February 2008</ref>
}}
[[Image:Notitia Dignitatum - Magister Officiorum West.jpg|thumb|right|The products of the ''fabricae'', from the [[Notitia dignitatum]]. The illustration includes: helmets, shields, mail coats, cuirasses and laminated limb defences, plus various weapons.]]
[[Image:Roemerschiff1.jpg|thumb|right|Full-scale reconstruction of a 4th century Roman river patrol-boat (''lusoria''), probably under the command of the ''dux'' of ''Germania II''. It is based on the remains of one of five Roman military boats discovered at [[Moguntiacum]] in the early 1980s. The boat above, denoted ''Mainz Type A'', was a rapid-intervention craft with a long, narrow shape for speed and round keel to allow access to shallows. It was rowed by the troops themselves (32 oars, 16 on each side). Whilst on board, the troops would mount their shields on stands on the gunwhales to protect themselves from missiles launched from the riverbanks. Propulsion was provided by three energy sources: wind, manpower and the river's own flow. [[Museum für Antike Schifffahrt]], [[Mainz, Germany]] ]]
{{FixHTML|end}}
At the base of the rank pyramid were the common soldiers: ''pedes'' (infantryman) and ''eques'' (cavalryman). Unlike his 2nd century counterpart, the 4th century soldier's food and equipment was not deducted from his salary (''stipendium''), but was provided free. <ref>Elton (1996) 121&ndash;2</ref> This is because the ''stipendium'', paid in debased silver ''denarii'', was under Diocletian worth far less than in the 2nd century. It lost its residual value under Constantine and ceased to be paid regularly in mid 4th century.<ref>Jones (1964) 623</ref>


:Because of the (ahem, ridiculous) [[United_States_Senate#Seniority|seniority]] rules of the Senate, the earlier the respective governor appoints a replacement the more earmarks the state will get. [[User:Saintrain|Saintrain]] ([[User talk:Saintrain|talk]]) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The soldier's sole substantial disposable income came from the ''donativa'', or cash bonuses handed out periodically by the emperors, as these were paid in gold ''solidi'' (which were never debased), or in pure silver. There was a regular donative of 5 ''solidi'' every five years of an ''Augustus'' reign (i.e. one ''solidus'' p.a.) Also, on the accession of a new ''Augustus'', 5 ''solidi'' plus a pound of silver (worth 4 ''solidi'', totaling 9 ''solidi'') were paid. The 12 ''Augusti'' that ruled the West between 284 and 395 averaged about nine years per reign. Thus the accession donatives would have averaged about 1 ''solidus'' p.a. It is also possible that this bonus was paid for each ''Augustus'' and/or a smaller bonus for each ''Caesar''.<ref>Elton (1996) 120&ndash;1</ref> The late soldier's disposable income would thus have averaged in the region of 2&ndash;4 ''solidi'' per annum. Even at the high end of this range, it was only about a third of the disposable income of a 2nd century legionary. The late soldier's discharge package (which included a small plot of land) was also minuscule compared with a 2nd century legionary's, worth just a tenth of the latter's.<ref>Duncan-Jones (1990) 35</ref><ref>Jones (1964) 31</ref>


If a president nominates an evil doofus for the Supreme Court, and the Senate refuses to confirm, as soon as the Senate recesses, the President could appoint him/her as a "[[Recess appointment|recess appointment]]" and they would serve until the end of the next session of the Senate. G.W. Bush appointed by a recess appointments 2 federal judges, a U.N. ambassador, an ambassador to Belgium, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a Deputy Director of Social Security, who would likely not have been approved by the Senate. The Senate has recently prevented aditional recess appointments by Bush by having "pro forma" sessions every couple of days with a few Senators present, so the Senate never formally recesses. In the last year of the Continental Congress, there were similar pro forma sessions, for no obvious reason, where one or two members were present. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite the disparity with the Principate, Jones and Elton argue that 4th century remuneration was attractive compared to the hard reality of existence at [[subsistence agriculture|subsistence level]] that most recruits' peasant families had to endure.<ref>Jones (1964) 647</ref> Against that has to be set the clear unpopularity of military service.


== Chinese reform ==
However, pay would have been more attractive in higher-grade units. The top of the pay pyramid were the ''scholae'' elite cavalry regiments. Next came ''palatini'' units, then ''comitatenses'', and finally ''limitanei''. There is little evidence about the pay differentials between grades. An ''actuarius'' (quartermaster) of a ''comitatus'' regiment was paid 50% more than his counterpart in a ''pseudocomitatensis'' regiment.<ref>Jones (1964) 626, 647</ref>


Do we have an article for a PRC equivalent of [[Demokratizatsiya]]? '''[[User:Grsz11|<font color="black">Grsz</font>]][[User talk:Grsz11|<b><font color="red"><sup>X</sup></font></b>]]''' 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Junior officers ===
:I'm not sure if it's a direct equivalent, but [[Gaige Kaifang]] (reform and opening up) is one of the primary policies of the new post-Mao China. The article says it's more like perestroika. A direct translation of demokratizatsiya is 民主主义化 minzhuzhuyihua, but it doesn't seem to be a common word. [[User:Steewi|Steewi]] ([[User talk:Steewi|talk]]) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


== Napoleon ==
Junior officer grades in old-style units (''legiones'', ''alae'' and ''cohortes'') remained the same as under the Principate up to and including [[centurion]] and [[decurion]]. In the new-style units, (''vexillationes'', ''auxilia'', etc), ranks with quite different names are attested.<ref>Jones (1964) 634</ref> So little is known about these ranks that it is impossible to equate them with the traditional ranks with any certainty. Vegetius states that the ''ducenarius'' commanded, as the name implies, 200 men. If so, the ''centenarius'' may have been the equivalent of a centurion in the old-style units.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 202</ref> Probably the most accurate comparison is by known pay levels:


what type of people did napolean have in his army? (ex: cooks, tailors, blacksmiths etc) <span style="font-size: smallest;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/70.79.116.227|70.79.116.227]] ([[User talk:70.79.116.227|talk]]) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
{| class = wikitable
|+ '''JUNIOR OFFICERS IN THE 4th CENTURY ARMY'''<ref>Based on: Jones (1964) 634; Goldsworthy (1995) 202; Holder (1980) 90&ndash;6</ref>
! Multiple of basic pay (2nd c.)<br>or annona (4th c.) !! 2nd c. cohors<br>''(ascending ranks)'' !! 2nd c. ala<br>''(ascending ranks)'' !! XXX !! 4th c. units<br>''(ascending ranks)''
|-
|1
|pedes
|gregalis
|
|pedes (eques)
|-
|1.5
|tesserarius
|sesquiplicarius
|
|semissalis
|-
|2
|signifer<br>optio<br>vexillarius
|signifer<br>curator?<br>vexillarius
|
|circitor<br>biarchus
|-
|2.5 to 5
|centurio<br>centurio princeps<br>beneficiarius?
|decurio<br>decurio princeps<br>beneficiarius?
|
|centenarius (2.5)<br>ducenarius (3.5)<br>senator (4)<br>primicerius (5)
|}
NOTE: Ranks correspond only in pay scale, not necessarily in function


:Please see our article on Napoleon's [[Grande Armée]], which contains a lot of good information on these lines. I am not sure if its exactly what you are looking for, but there's lots of good info there. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Senior officers ===


::If you mean what type of people by occupation, then we can almost say that the answer is "every type". The Emperor's famous comment ''Une armée marche à son estomac'' ("An army marches on its stomach") shows his attention to logistical planning. [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
{| class=wikitable
|+ '''SENIOR OFFICERS IN THE 4TH CENTURY ARMY'''<ref>Jones (1964) 640, 643</ref>
! Pay scale<br>''(multiple of pedes)'' !! Rank<br>''(ascending order)'' !! Job description
|-
|12
|Protector
|officer cadet
|-
|n.a.
|Tribunus (or Praefectus)
|regimental commander
|-
|n.a.
|Comes (junior)
|brigade commander, staff officer to ''magister'' or emperor, or commander of ''schola''
|-
|100
|Dux
|border army commander
|-
|n.a.
|Comes (senior)
|commander, smaller regional ''comitatus'' or ''protectores domestici''
|-
|n.a.
|Vicarius
|deputy to magister militum
|-
|n.a.
|Magister militum<br>(or magister peditum/equitum)
|commander, ''comitatus praesentalis''<br>or larger regional ''comitatus''
|}


= October 9 =
A significant innovation of the 4th century was the corps of ''protectores'', which contained cadet senior officers. Although ''protectores'' were supposed to be soldiers who had risen through the ranks by meritorious service, it became a widespread practice to admit to the corps young men from outside the army (often the sons of senior officers). The ''protectores'' formed a corps that was both an officer training school and pool of staff officers available to carry out special tasks for the ''magistri militum'' or the emperor. Those attached to the emperor were known as ''protectores domestici'' and organised in four ''scholae'' under a ''comes domesticorum''. After a few years' service in the corps, a ''protector'' would normally be granted a commission (''sacra epistula'') by the emperor and placed in command of a military regiment.<ref>Jones (1964) 636&ndash;40</ref>


== date formats around the world ==
Regimental commanders were known by one of three possible titles: ''tribunus'' (for ''comitatus'' regiments plus border ''cohortes''), ''praefectus'' (most other ''limitanei'' regiments) or ''praepositus'' (for ''milites'' and some ethnic units).<ref>Jones (1964) 640</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 101</ref> Although most ''tribuni'' were appointed from the corps of ''protectores'', a minority were directly commissioned outsiders.<ref>Jones (1964) 642</ref> The status of regimental commanders varied enormously depending on the grade of their unit. At the top end, the commander of a ''schola'', who enjoyed direct access to the emperor, often reached the highest rank of ''magister militum''.<ref>Jones (1964) 641</ref>.


[[Image:Date.png|right|thumb]]
Between regimental and corps command were a group of senior staff officers who carried the title of ''comes'', but were junior to the ''comites rei militaris'' who commanded the regional ''comitatus''. They included the tribunes of ''scholae'', who were, by the early 5th century, usually granted this title, as well as "pure" staff officers (i.e. without a command) who accompanied the emperor or a ''magister militum''.<ref>Jones (1964) 641</ref> In addition, it appears that the commander of a brigade of two twinned ''comitatus'' regiments was called a ''comes''. (Such twinned regiments would always operate and transfer together e.g. the legions ''Ioviani'' and ''Herculiani'').<ref>Elton (1996) 91</ref>
In the article [[Calendar date]], there is a map (at right) showing which countries use small-endian DD-MM-YYYY style dates (blue), which big-endian YYYY-MM-DD (green), which Usonian MM-DD-YYYY (red), and which are mixed (aqua, purple, black). Unfortunately, a lot of the world is left blank, especially in Africa and the Mideast. If any of you are from a country that's been omitted, could you let us know your country's conventions on the image talk page? Thanks, [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


:[[WP:OR]]? "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed". --[[User:Tagishsimon|Tagishsimon]] [[User_talk:Tagishsimon|(talk)]] 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is unknown what proportion of the corps commanders (''duces'', ''comites'' and ''magistri militum'') had risen from the ranks, but it is likely to have been small as progress through the junior ranks to ''protector'' was often by seniority and very slow. Most rankers would therefore be nearing retirement age by the time they were given command of a regiment and would go no further.<ref>Tomlin (1988) 115</ref> Ammianus names four rankers who reached above ''tribunus''.<ref>Jones (1964) 643</ref> One, the ''comes'' Flavius Memorius, served 28 years (i.e. was probably nearly 50) before joining the ''protectores''. In contrast, directly commissioned ''protectores'' and ''tribuni'' dominated the higher echelons, as they were usually young men when they started. For such men, promotion to corps command could be swift e.g. Theodosius I was a ''dux'' at age 28.<ref>Jones (1964) 639</ref> It was also possible for rungs on the rank ladder to be skipped. For example, the barbarian-born Agilo was promoted direct to ''magister militum'' from ''tribunus'' of a ''schola'' in 360.<ref>Jones (1964) 641</ref>


::If the user obtains references for the countries concerned then displaying this information in Image form would not be [[WP:OR]]. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
== Equipment ==


:::We can discuss on the Talk page how to verify the claims, if the user doesn't provide a ref. Something interesting might turn up. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 08:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The basic equipment of a 4th century foot soldier was essentially the same as in the 2nd century: metal armour cuirass, metal helmet, shield and sword. Some evolution took place during the 3rd century. Trends included the adoption of warmer clothing; the disappearance of distinctive legionary armour and weapons; the adoption by the infantry of equipment used by the cavalry in the earlier period; and the greater use of heavily armoured cavalry called [[cataphracts]].<ref>Elton (1996) </ref>


::::I think it is vital that if the image contains un-cited data then this is made clear. The whole image should be tagged "citation needed" and then details of which areas are unverified given later. If you have difficulty obtaining references for many countries then maybe you could use different shadings (e.g. pale variants of the colours) for unverified data. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Clothing ===
:::::The article lists the countries, though they might not all be there, or might not all have good refs. (I haven't worked on the article.) [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


:::::Just out of curiosity, why is Canada the only country in black? Did we do something bad? Or *gasp* is the black hole to be created by the [[Large Hadron Collider]] going to immigrate here? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In the 1st and 2nd centuries, a Roman soldier's clothes consisted of a single-piece, short-sleeved tunic whose hem reached the knees and special hobnailed sandals (''caligae''). This attire, which left the arms and legs bare, had evolved in a Mediterranean climate and was not suitable for northern Europe in cold weather. In northern Europe, long-sleeved tunics, trousers (''bracae''), socks (worn inside the ''caligae'') and laced boots were commonly worn in winter from the 1st century. During the 3rd century, these items of clothing became much more widespread, apparently common in Mediterranean provinces also.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 120, 127</ref> However, it is likely that in warmer weather, trousers were dispensed with and ''caligae'' worn instead of socks and boots.<ref>Mosaic from Piazza Armerina</ref>


::::::It's the only country that uses all three orders. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Armour ===
:::::::It is? That's news to me (and the [http://www.cdnpay.ca/news/new_cheque_specs.asp reference] in [[Calendar date]] used to back up the claim is less than convincing). How do you define "use"? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::It would seem very unlikely that they would use two mutually ambiguous date systems. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Legionary soldiers of the 1st and 2nd centuries had exclusive use of the ''[[lorica segmentata]]'' or laminated-strip cuirass which was a complex piece of armour which provided superior protection to the other types of Roman armour, chain mail (''[[lorica hamata]]'') and scale armour (''[[lorica squamata]]''). Testing of modern replicas have demonstrated that this kind of armour was impenetrable to most direct and missile strikes. It was, however, uncomfortable: reenactors have discovered that chafing renders it painful to wear for longer than a few hours at a time. It was also expensive to produce and difficult to maintain.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 129</ref> In the 3rd century, the ''segmentata'' appears to have been dropped and troops are depicted wearing [[chain mail]] (mainly) or scales, the standard armour of the 2nd century auxilia. The artistic record shows that most late soldiers wore metal armour, despite Vegetius' statement to the contrary. For example, illustrations in the ''Notitia'' show that the army's ''fabricae'' (arms factories) were producing mail armour at the end of the 4th century.<ref>''Notitia'' Oriens.XI</ref> Actual examples of both scale armour and quite large sections of mail have been recovered, at Trier and Weiler-La-Tour respectively, within fourth century contexts.<ref>Bishop and Coulston (2006) 208</ref> Officers generally seem to have worn bronze or iron cuirasses, as in the days of the Principate, together with traditional ''[[pteruges]]''.<ref>Elton (1996) 111</ref> The cataphract and ''clibanarii'' cavalry, from limited pictorial evidence and especially from the description of these troops by Ammianus, seem to have worn specialist forms of armour. In particular their limbs were protected by laminated defences, made up of curved and overlapping metal segments.<ref>Ammianus, XVI 10</ref>
:::::::::Actually, at work, the e-mail system uses dd/mm/yyyy, the computer clock uses mm/dd/yy, and the computer program with which we carry out our exciting tasks uses yyyy/mm/dd, so that's one example of all three being used in Canada. [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::That must be confusing. If you see write the date on a cheque, or put your date of birth on a form would you usually put dd/mm/yyyy, or mm/dd/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd? -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::I write "October 9, 2008" :) [[User:Adam Bishop|Adam Bishop]] ([[User talk:Adam Bishop|talk]]) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::I confirm that all three styles are used in Canada. I probably see little-endian most often, followed by "US style", and big-endian least often. Printed forms usually ask for a specific format; if they don't, you can do as Adam says; and if you don't, you risk being misunderstood, that's all. --Anonymous, [[ISO 8601|2008-10-09]], 18:45 UTC.


The map is certainly misleading, as the DD-MM-YYYY style is used extensively in the US; the Wikipedia article on [[calendar date]] is absolutely false on this matter. The ''Papers of Thomas Jefferson'' published in 1950, for example, tell us that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4 July 1776. I doubt if any American readers have ever been confused by that format, or even found it particularly unusual, as it is seen so often. I suspect that the idea that there is a single "US style" date format is a Wikipedia invention. —[[User:Kevin Myers|Kevin]] [[User talk:Kevin Myers|Myers]] 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Helmets ===
:Except that that is dd MMMM yyyy. dd/mm/yy would be 04/07/1776 which I imagine many people in the US would find confusing. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


:We're talking about number-only formats. If you write 04-07-1776 in the US, it will be almost universally read as April 7, not July 4. [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 07:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
In general, Roman cavalry helmets had enhanced protection, in the form of wider cheek-guards and deeper neck-guards, for the sides and back of the head than infantry helmets. Infantry were less vulnerable in those parts due to their tighter formation when fighting.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 137</ref> During the 3rd century, infantry helmets tended to adopt the more protective features of Principate cavalry helmets. Cheek-guards could often be fastened together over the chin to protect the face, and covered the ears save for a slit to permit hearing e.g. the "Auxiliary E" type or its Niederbieber variant. Cavalry helmets became even more enclosed e.g. the "[[Heddernheim]]" type, which is close to the medieval [[great helm]], but at the cost much reduced vision and hearing.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 126</ref>


== Hummanities homework!! ==
In contrast, some infantry helmets in the 4th century reverted to the more open features of the main Principate type, the "[[Imperial helmet|Imperial Gallic]]". The "[[Intercisa]]" design left the face unobstructed and had ear-holes in the join between cheek-guards and bowl to allow good hearing. In a radical change from the earlier single-bowl design, the Intercisa bowl was made of two separate pieces joined by a riveted ridge in the middle (hence the term "ridge helmet"). It was simpler and cheaper to manufacture, and therefore probably by far the most common type, but structurally weaker and therefore offered less effective protection.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 126</ref> A more protective ridge helmet, with nose-guard and ear-holes, was the "[[Burgh Castle]]" type (with ear-holes) and its [[Conceşti]] variant, which is probably the cavalry version, as it lacks ear-holes. Reenactors are fond of portraying late soldiers wearing helmets with nose-guards, but it is unclear how common these were, as they are never depicted in images and bas-reliefs such as those on the [[Arch of Constantine]]. Face-guards of mail or in the form of metal 'anthropomorphic masks,' with eye-holes, were often added to the helmets of the heaviest forms of cavalry, especially ''cataphracti''.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 123, 205</ref>


Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:Nepal Mongolia South sea Islands Egypt <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kittymaree|Kittymaree]] ([[User talk:Kittymaree|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kittymaree|contribs]]) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
Despite the apparent cheapness of manufacture of their basic components, many surviving examples of Late Roman helmets, including the Intercisa type, show evidence of expensive decoration in the form of silver or silver-gilt sheathing.<ref>Southern & Dixon (1996) 92-93</ref><ref> Bishop & Coulston (2006) 210-213</ref> A possible explanation is that most of the surviving exemplars may have belonged to officers and that silver- or gold-plating denoted rank; and, in the case of mounted gemstones, high rank e.g. the ornate [[Deurne]] helmet, believed by some historians to have belonged to a senior officer.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 202</ref> Other academics, in contrast, consider that silver-sheathed helmets may have been widely worn by ''comitatus'' soldiers, given as a form of pay or reward.<ref> Bishop and Coulston, (2006) 214-215.</ref>


:Gosh that's real power, Lets see, for starters I'd like to locate the South Sea Islands just a short hop away, now that would be really nice. I would much prefer to keep their major ecosystems with them though. ;-) [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Shields ===
::ps we're not supposed to answer homework questions on the refdesk, see 'Before you ask a question' at the top for some tips for answering questions yourself. [[User:Dmcq|Dmcq]] ([[User talk:Dmcq|talk]]) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Homework's getting easier: "Locate the following places on the world physical map and '''''not''''' the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:". We would have had to name the major ecosystems too. -- [[User:Q Chris|Q Chris]] ([[User talk:Q Chris|talk]]) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::''[[Austin Powers|Mojor]]'' ecosystem? Is that you, Dr. Evil? [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No, not ecosystem; ''ecco''system. And [[Ecco|that's]] just confusing. --[[User:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F">LarryMac</font>]][[User talk:LarryMac|<font color="#3EA99F"><small> | Talk</small></font>]] 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


Perhaps ask your English teacher for some extra homework?--[[User:Combatir|Combatir]] ([[User talk:Combatir|talk]]) 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The legionary ''[[scutum (shield)|scutum]]'', a convex rectangular shield also disappeared during the 3rd century. All troops adopted the auxiliary oval (or sometimes round) shield (''clipeus'').<ref>Elton (1996) </ref> Shields, from examples found at Dura and Nydam, were of vertical plank construction, the planks glued, and faced inside and out with painted leather. The edges of the shield were bound with stitched rawhide, which shrank as it dried improving structural cohesion. It was also lighter than the edging of copper alloy used in earlier Roman shields.<ref>Bishop and Coulston (2006) 217</ref>


:A good bit of general advice for doing homework: Pay attention in class for a few days before it's set. You'll find the teacher generally tells you how to do the homework prior to setting it. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Hand weapons ===


::This question should be moved to the Hummanities desk. [[User:DJ Clayworth|DJ Clayworth]] ([[User talk:DJ Clayworth|talk]]) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The ''[[gladius]]'', a short (median length: 460 mm) stabbing-sword that was designed for close-quarters fighting, and was standard for the Principate infantry (both legionary and auxiliary), also was phased out during the 3rd century. The infantry adopted the ''[[spatha]]'', a longer (median length: 760mm) sword that during the earlier centuries was used by the cavalry only.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref> However, alongside the ''spatha'' Vegetius mentions the use of shorter-bladed swords termed ''semispathae.''<ref>Bishop and Couslton (2006) 202</ref> At the same time, infantry acquired a heavy thrusting-spear (''[[hasta]]'') which became the main close order combat weapon to replace the ''gladius'', as the ''spatha'' was too long to be swung comfortably in tight formation (although it could be used to stab). These trends imply a greater emphasis on fighting the enemy "at arm's length".<ref>Elton (1996) 110</ref> In the 4th century, there is no archaeological or artistic evidence of the ''[[pugio]]'' (Roman military dagger), which is attested until the 3rd century. 4th century graves have yielded short, single-edged knives in conjunction with military belt fittings.<ref>Bishop and Coulston (2006) 205</ref>


:::Or perhaps the [[WP:Reference Desk/Homework]]... hmm, now why does that show up as a red link, again? --[[User:Alinnisawest|Alinnisawest]],<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Alinnisawest|<font color="black">'''Dalek Empress'''</font>]]</sup> ([[User talk:Alinnisawest|<font color="#cf0021">'''extermination requests here]]'''</font>) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Missiles ===
Wikipedia has articles [[Nepal]] , [[Mongolia]] , [[South Sea Islands]] , and [[Egypt]] which have the information you seek. [[User:Edison|Edison]] ([[User talk:Edison|talk]]) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


<''removed. Please don't provide false information.'' <font family="Arial">[[User:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">Little Red Riding Hood</span>]]''[[User talk:NurseryRhyme|<span style="color:dark blue">talk</span>]]''</font> 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)> --[[Special:Contributions/98.217.8.46|98.217.8.46]] ([[User talk:98.217.8.46|talk]]) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition to his thrusting-spear, a late foot soldier might also carry a throwing-spear (''verrutum'') or a ''spiculum'', a kind of heavy, long ''pilum'', similar to an [[angon]]. Alternatively, a couple of short javelins (''lanceae''). Late infantrymen often carried half a dozen lead-weighted throwing-darts called ''[[plumbata]]e'' (from ''plumbum'' = "lead"), with an effective range of ca. 30&nbsp;m, well beyond that of a javelin. The darts were carried clipped to the back of the shield.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 167; (2003) 205</ref> The late foot soldier thus had greater missile capability than his Principate predecessor, who was usually limited to just one ''pilum''.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 168</ref> Late archers continued to use the recurved [[composite bow]] as their standard. This was a sophisticated, compact and powerful weapon, suitable for mounted and foot archers alike (the cavalry version being more compact than the infantry's). A small number of archers may have been armed with [[crossbows]] (''manuballistae'').<ref>Elton (1996) 108</ref>


== I can't find the damn website! ==
== Supply infrastructure ==
A critical advantage enjoyed by the late army over all its foreign enemies except the Persians was a highly sophisticated organisation to ensure that the army was properly equipped and supplied on campaign.
In the 4th century, the production of weapons and equipment was highly centralised (and presumably standardised) in a number of major state-run arms factories (''fabricae'') documented in the ''Notitia''. It is unknown when these were first established, but they certainly existed by the time of Diocletian.<ref>Jones (1964) </ref> In the 2nd century, there is evidence of ''fabricae'' inside legionary bases and even in the much smaller auxiliary forts, staffed by the soldiers themselves.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 88, 149</ref> But there is no evidence, literary or archaeological, of ''fabricae'' outside military bases and staffed by civilians during the Principate (although their existence cannot be excluded, as no archaeological evidence has been found for the late ''fabricae'' either). Late ''fabricae'' were located in border provinces and dioceses.<ref>Elton (1996) 116</ref> Some were general manufacturers producing both armour and weapons (''fabrica scutaria et armorum'') or just one of the two. Others were specialised in one or more of the following: ''fabrica spatharia'' (sword manufacture), ''lanciaria'' (spears), ''arcuaria'' (bows), ''sagittaria'' (arrows), ''loricaria'' (body armour), ''clibanaria'' (cataphract armour), and ''ballistaria'' (catapults).<ref>''Notitia'' Titles Oriens XI, Occidens IX</ref>


Has anyone here read Thomas Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"? Somewhere, early on in the book, he references a website about the origin or history of ideas. I know he does because I own the book, I read it, and I made a mental note to check it out sometime. Well, now I can't find. I skimmed the first half of the book, I searched the book on Amazon, I searched the web for the site. Nothing. Nada. Short of re-reading the book until I bump in to it again, I'm out of ideas. Does anyone have any clue? [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]]) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Like their barbarian enemies, the late army could rely on foraging for supplies when campaigning on enemy soil. But this was obviously undesirable on Roman territory and impractical in winter. The empire's complex supply organisation enabled the army to campaign in all seasons and in areas where the enemy employed a "scorched earth" policy. The responsibility for supplying the army rested with the ''praefectus praetorio'' of the operational sector. He in turn controlled a hierarchy of civilian authorities (diocesan ''vicarii'' and provincial governors), whose agents collected, stored and delivered supplies to the troops direct or to predetermined fortified points.<ref>Elton (1996) 236</ref> The quantities involved were enormous and would require lengthy and elaborate advance planning for major campaigns. A late legion of 1,000 men would require a minimum of 2.3 tonnes of grain-equivalent ''every day''.<ref>Elton (1996) 237</ref> An imperial escort army of 25,000 men would thus require around two million tonnes of grain-equivalent for a month's campaign (plus fodder for the horses).
:Does [[History of ideas]] help? [[User:Bielle|៛ Bielle]] ([[User talk:Bielle|talk]]) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::No, it definitely wasn't Wikipedia nor was it the external link provided there. [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]]) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
:::Okay, I found it. It's ideafinder.org. I searched the book on amazon for the term "according". <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Pyro19|Pyro19]] ([[User talk:Pyro19|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Pyro19|contribs]]) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Canterbury Tales ==
Such vast cargoes would be carried by boat as far as possible, by sea and/or river, and only the shortest possible distance overland. That is because transport on water was far more economical than on land (as it remains today, although the differential is smaller). Land transport of military supplies on the ''[[cursus publicus]]'' (imperial transport service) was typically by wagons (''angariae''), with a maximum legal load of 1,500 lbs (680 kg), drawn by two pairs of oxen.<ref>Jones (1964) 831</ref> A standard Roman freighter-ship of the period had a capacity of ca. 100 tonnes.<ref>Jones (1964) 843</ref> Thus, such a vessel, with a 30-man crew, could carry the same load as ca. 150 wagons (which required 600 oxen and 150 drivers, plus food for both). It could also, with a favourable wind, travel much faster than the typical 3 km/hr achieved by the wagons.<ref>Jones (1964) 842</ref> According to the available shipping-rates, it was cheaper to transport a cargo by sea from Syria to [[Lusitania]] (i.e. the entire length of the Mediterranean, ca. 5,000 km) than just 110 km overland.<ref>Jones (1964) 841</ref> It is likely that the establishment of the empire's frontier on the Rhine-Danube line was dictated by the logistical need for large rivers to accomodate supply ships more than by defensibility. These rivers were dotted with dedicated military supply docks (''portus exceptionales'').<ref>Jones (1964) 844</ref>


What were some examples of Chaucer's moral judgement of his characters in [[Canterbury Tales]]? Thanks, <font color="#1EC112" size="3px">[[User:Reywas92|Reywas92]]</font><sup><font color="#45E03A">[[User talk:Reywas92|'''Talk''']]</font></sup> 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The protection of supply convoys on the rivers was the responsibility of the fluvial flotillas (''classes'') under the command of the riverine ''duces''. The ''Notitia'' gives no information about the Rhine flotillas (as the Rhine frontier had collapsed by the time the Western section was compiled), but mentions four ''classes Histricae'' (Danube flotillas) and eight other ''classes'' in tributaries of the Danube. Each flotilla was commanded by a ''praefectus classis'' who reported to the local ''dux''. It appears that each ''dux'' on the Danube disposed of at least one flotilla (one, the ''dux Pannoniae'', had three).<ref>''Notitia'' ''Oriens'' Titles XXXIX to XLII and ''Occidens'' Titles XXXII to XXXIV</ref>


:According to [[Terry Jones|a member of Monty Python]], he didn't like the knight... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
== Fortifications ==
:The best place to start would be reading the book. Then pay attention in class while discussing the book. Then sit and mull it over for a bit. Then you can do your homework. Good luck! --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Theodosianische Landmauer in Istanbul.jpg|thumb|right|200px|The [[Theodosian Walls|Walls of Theodosius II]] at Constantinople, built 408&ndash;413, to increase the area of land protected by the original Constantinian walls. Note the massive crenellated towers and surviving sections of wall. The walls actually consisted of a triple curtain, each one overlooking the other. They proved impregnable to even the largest armies until the introduction of explosive artillery in the later Middle Ages]]
[[Image:Portchester castle 05.jpg|thumb|right|An example of late Roman fortification. Note the protruding towers to allow enfilading fire. The original height of both walls and towers was clearly greater than today, and the crenellations are not the original ones, but crudely cut from the curtain wall itself in the medieval period. The church visible inside the walls was built in the 12th century by the [[Normans]]. [[Portchester Castle]], England. 3rd century]]
Compared to the 1st and 2nd centuries, the 3rd and 4th centuries saw much greater fortification activity, with many new forts built.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 206</ref> Later Roman fortifications, both new and upgraded old ones, contained much stronger defensive features than their earlier counterparts. In addition, the late 3rd/4th centuries saw the fortification of many towns and cities including the City of Rome itself and its eastern sister, Constantinople.<ref>Elton (1996) 161&ndash;71</ref>


::It is rather a long time since I read any of ''The Canterbury Tales'', and I did not read them all, but what I remember is that on the whole Chaucer, in his narrative, side-steps what we usually mean by moral judgements. For instance, he presents the Monk mostly from the Monk's own point of view. However, I have just taken a look at the General Prologue, and at least one passage there has caught my eye in which Chaucer praises the moral character of one of his characters: "A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man, / That fro the time that he first bigan / To riden out, he loved chivalrye, / Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye..." [[User:Strawless|Strawless]] ([[User talk:Strawless|talk]]) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
According to Luttwak, Roman forts of the 1st/2nd centuries, whether ''castra legionaria'' (inaccurately translated as legionary "fortresses") or auxiliary forts, were clearly residential bases that were not designed to withstand assault. The typical rectangular "playing-card" shape, the long, thin and low walls and shallow ditch and the unfortified gates were not defensible features and their purpose was delimitation and keeping out individual intruders.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 134&ndash;5</ref> This view is too extreme, as all the evidence suggests that such forts afforded a significant level of protection, even the more rudimentary early type based on the design of marching-camps (ditch, earth rampart and wooden palisade). The latter is exemplified by the siege of the legionary camp at ''Castra Vetera'' ([[Xanten]]) during the [[revolt of the Batavi]] in 69-70 AD. 5,000 legionaries succeeded in holding out for several months against vastly superior numbers of rebel Batavi and their allies under the renegade auxiliary officer [[Civilis]], despite the latter disposing of ca. 8,000 Roman-trained and equipped auxiliary troops and deploying Roman-style siege engines. (The Romans were eventually forced to surrender the fort by starvation).<ref>Tacitus ''Historiae'' IV.22, 23, 29, 30, 60</ref>


:::Yes, but as AnonMoos points out, it's possible to read Chaucer's praising of the knight as heavily ironic. [[User talk:Algebraist|Algebraist]] 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, later forts were built to much higher defensive specifications than their 2nd century predecessors, including the following features:
# Deeper (average: 3&nbsp;m) and much wider (av. 10&nbsp;m) perimeter ditches (''fossae''). These would have flat floors rather than the traditional V-shape.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 206</ref> Such ditches would make it difficult to bring siege equipment (ladders, rams, and other engines) to the walls. It would also concentrate attackers in an enclosed area where they would be exposed to missile fire from the walls.<ref>Elton (1996) 161</ref>
# Higher (av. 9&nbsp;m) and thicker (av. 3&nbsp;m) walls. Walls were made of stone or stone facing with rubble core. The greater thickness would protect the wall from enemy mining. The height of the walls would force attackers to use scaling-ladders. The parapet of the rampart would have [[crenellations]] to provide protection from missiles for defenders.<ref>Elton (1996) 163</ref>
# Higher (av. 17.5&nbsp;m) and projecting corner and interval towers. These would enable enfilading fire on attackers. Towers were normally round or half-round, and only rarely square as the latter were less defensible. Towers would be normally be spaced at 30&nbsp;m intervals on circuit walls.<ref>Elton (1996) 162&ndash;3</ref>
# Gate towers, one on each side of the gate and projecting out from the gate to allow defenders to shoot into the area in front of the entrance. The gates themselves were normally wooden with metal covering plates to prevent destruction by fire. Some gates had [[portcullises]]. Postern gates were built into towers or near them to allow sorties.<ref>Elton (1996) 164</ref>


== Why Asian Women & White men? ==
More numerous than new-build forts were old forts upgraded to higher defensive specifications. Thus the two parallel ditches common around earlier forts could be joined by excavating the ground between them. Projecting towers were added. Gates were either rebuilt with projecting towers or sealed off by constructing a large rectangular [[bastion]]. The walls were strengthened by doubling the old thickness. Upgraded forts were generally much larger than new-build. New forts were rarely over one hectare in size and were normally placed to fill gaps between old forts and towns.<ref>Elton (1996) 165&ndash;7</ref> However, not all of the old forts that continued to be used in the 4th century were upgraded e.g. the forts on [[Hadrian's Wall]] and some other forts in Britannia were not significantly modified.<ref>Elton (1996) 167</ref>


Why do many Asian American women like to date and marry white men, but not with black men and brown men? Black men and brown men are sexy and "big", but why many asian american women don't date/marry them? [[Special:Contributions/208.124.207.122|208.124.207.122]] ([[User talk:208.124.207.122|talk]]) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The main features of late Roman fortification clearly presage those of [[castle|medieval castles]]. But the defensibility of late Roman forts must not be exaggerated. Late Roman forts were not always located on defensible sites, such as hilltops and they were not designed as independent logistic facilities where the garrison could survive on internal supplies (water in cisterns or from wells and stored food) for months or even years. They remained bases for troops that would sally out and engage the enemy in the field.<ref>Isaac (1992) 198</ref>


:Ask them. This is a reference desk. I seriously doubt anyone will find a respectable study on this topic. However, if someone does, they will surely give you a link to the reference. If you are simply attempting to get a discussion going, keep in mind that this is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. There are thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet that you can use. -- [[User:Kainaw|<font color='#ff0000'>k</font><font color='#cc0033'>a</font><font color='#990066'>i</font><font color='#660099'>n</font><font color='#3300cc'>a</font><font color='#0000ff'>w</font>]][[User talk:Kainaw|&trade;]] 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Nevertheless, the benefits of more defensible forts are evident: they could act as temporary refuges for overwhelmed local troops during barbarian incursions, while they waited for reinforcements. The forts were difficult for the barbarians to take by assault, as they generally lacked the necessary equipment. The forts could store sufficient supplies to enable the defenders to hold out for a few weeks, and to supply relieving troops. They could also act as bases from which defenders could make sorties against isolated groups of barbarians and to cooperate with relieving forces.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 132&ndash;4</ref>
::I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done a study on this subject - people do all kinds of studies on what different people find attractive. --[[User:Tango|Tango]] ([[User talk:Tango|talk]]) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


:::There are some references in the article on [[interracial marriages]] which may be interesting. --[[User:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM]] ([[User talk:Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM|talk]]) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The question arises as to why the 4th century army needed forts with enhanced defensive features whereas the 2nd century army apparently did not. Luttwak argues that defensible forts were an integral feature of a 4th century defence-in-depth "grand strategy", while in the 2nd century "preclusive defence" rendered such forts unnecessary . But the existence of such a "strategy" is strongly disputed by several scholars, as many elements of the late Roman army's posture were consistent with continued forward defence.<ref>Mann (1979) 175&ndash;83</ref> An alternative explanation is that preclusive defence was still in effect but was not working as well as previously and barbarian raids were penetrating the empire more frequently.(see [[#Strategy|Strategy]], below)


:Isn't it obvious? White men in general have the most prestige in western society. Films, books, magazines, and newspapers reinforce this notion constantly. [[User:Clarityfiend|Clarityfiend]] ([[User talk:Clarityfiend|talk]]) 09:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
== Strategy and tactics ==
=== Strategy ===
{{Main|Defence-in-depth (Roman military)}}
[[Edward Luttwak]]'s ''Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire'' (1976) launched the thesis that in the 3rd and early 4th centuries, the empire's defence strategy mutated from "forward defence" (or "preclusive defence") in the Principate to "defence-in-depth" in the 4th century. According to Luttwak, the Principate army had relied on neutralising imminent barbarian incursions before they reached the imperial borders. This was achieved by stationing units (both legions and auxiliary regiments) right on the border and establishing and garrisoning strategic salients beyond the borders. The response to any threat would thus be a pincer movement into barbarian territory: large infantry and cavalry forces from the border bases would immediately cross the border to intercept the coalescing enemy army. <ref>Luttwak (1976) Fig.3.3</ref>


= October 10 =
According to Luttwak, the forward defence system was always vulnerable to unusually large barbarian concentrations of forces, as the Roman army was too thinly spread along the enormous borders to deal with such threats. In addition, the lack of any reserves to the rear of the border entailed that a barbarian force that successfully penetrated the perimeter defences would have unchallenged ability to rampage deep into the empire before Roman reinforcements from other border garrisons could arrive to intercept them.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 136</ref>


== Austrapolithecus ==
The essential feature of defence-in-depth, according to Luttwak, was an acceptance that the Roman frontier provinces themselves would become the main combat zone in operations against barbarian threats, rather than the barbarian lands across the border. Under this strategy, border forces would not attempt to repel a large incursion. Instead, they would retreat into fortified strongholds and wait for mobile forces (''comitatenses'') to arrive and intercept the invaders. Border forces would be substantially weaker than under forward defence, but their reduction in numbers (and quality) would be compensated by the establishment of much stronger fortifications to protect themselves.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 132</ref>


where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Luseta|Luseta]] ([[User talk:Luseta|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Luseta|contribs]]) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
But the validity of Luttwak's thesis has been strongly disputed by a number of scholars, especially in a powerful critique by B. Isaac, the author of a leading study of the Roman army in the East (1992).<ref>J. C. Mann in ''Journal of Roman Studies'' 69 (1979)</ref><ref>F. Miller in ''Britannia'' 13 (1982)</ref><ref>Isaac (1992) 372&ndash;418</ref> Isaac claims that the empire did not have the intelligence capacity or centralised military planning to sustain a grand strategy e.g. there was no equivalent to a modern army's [[German General Staff|general staff]].<ref>Isaac (1992) 378, 383, 401&ndash;6</ref> In any case, claims Isaac, the empire was not interested in "defence" at all: it was fundamentally aggressive both in ideology and military posture, up to and including the 4th century.<ref>Isaac (1992) 387&ndash;93</ref>


:See [[Australopithecus]]. [[User:PrimeHunter|PrimeHunter]] ([[User talk:PrimeHunter|talk]]) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, there is a lack of substantial archaeological or literary evidence to support the defence-in-depth theory.<ref>Mann (1979) 180&ndash;1</ref> (a) J.C. Mann points out that there is no evidence, either in the ''Notitia Dignitatum'' or in the archaeological record, that units along the Rhine or Danube were stationed in the border hinterlands.<ref>Mann (1979) 180</ref> On the contrary, virtually all forts identified as built or occupied in the 4th century on the Danube lay on, very near or even beyond the river, strikingly similar to the 2nd century distribution.<ref>C. Scarre ''Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Rome'' (1995) 87 (map)</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 157, 159 (Fig 13)</ref>


== Russia/Georgia conflict ==
Another supposed element of "defence-in-depth" were the ''comitatus praesentales'' (imperial escort armies) stationed in the interior of the empire. But Luttwak himself admits that these were too distant from the frontier to be of much value in intercepting barbarian incursions.<ref>Luttwak (1976) 190</ref> Their arrival in theatre could take weeks, if not months.<ref>Elton (1996) 215</ref> Although they are often described as "mobile field armies", in this context "immobile" would be a more accurate description. A traditional view is that the escort armies' role was precisely as a strategic reserve of last resort that could intercept really large barbarian invasions that succeeded in penetrating deep into the empire (such as the invasions of the late 3rd century). But this theory conflicts with the fact the large ''comitatus'' was not established before 312, by which time there had not been a successful barbarian invasion for ca. 40 years. Hence the mainstream modern view that the ''praesentales'' armies central role was as insurance against usurpers.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 170</ref>


I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) [[User:Cherry Red Toenails|Cherry Red Toenails]] ([[User talk:Cherry Red Toenails|talk]]) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Luttwak terminates his analysis at the end of Constantine's reign, before the establishment of the regional ''comitatus''. Unlike the imperial escort armies, these were close enough to the theatre of operations to succour the border troops. But their stationing may have differed little from the location of legions in the 2nd century, even though they apparently wintered inside cities, rather than in purpose-built legionary bases.<ref>Mann (1979) 181</ref> For example, the two ''comitatus'' of Illyricum (East and West) are documented as wintering in Sirmium, which was the site of a major legionary base in the Principate.<ref>Elton (1996) 209</ref>
:P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. [[User:Cherry Red Toenails|Cherry Red Toenails]] ([[User talk:Cherry Red Toenails|talk]]) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
::Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --[[User:Jayron32|Jayron32]].[[User talk:Jayron32|<small>talk</small>]].[[Special:Contributions/Jayron32|<small>contribs</small>]] 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? [[User:Kwamikagami|kwami]] ([[User talk:Kwamikagami|talk]]) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Furthermore, the late empire maintained a central feature of Principate forward defence: a system of treaties of mutual assistance with tribes living on the imperial frontiers. The Romans would promise to defend the ally from attack by its neighbours. In return, the ally would promise to refrain from raiding imperial territory, and prevent neighbouring tribes from doing the same. Although the allies would officially be denoted ''tributarii'' (i.e. subject to paying tribute to Rome, in cash or in kind), in practice the loyalty of the ally was often secured by gifts or regular subsidies from Rome. This practice was applied on all the frontiers.<ref>Jones (1964) 611</ref> The Romans continued to assist the client tribes to defend themselves in the 4th century. For example, Constantine I's army constructed two massive lines of defensive earthworks, 100&ndash;250&nbsp;km beyond the Danube, totalling ca. 1,500&nbsp;km in length, the [[Devil's Dykes]] in Hungary/Romania and the [[Brazda lui Novac de Nord]] in Romania. Garrisoned by a mix of Roman and native troops, their purpose was to protect Dacian and Sarmatian tributary tribes of the [[Tisza]] and [[Wallachia]]n plains against Gothic incursions. This created a Transdanubian buffer zone, extending from ''Aquincum'' ([[Budapest]]) all the way to the Danube delta, obviously contradicting the proposition that the empire's Danubian border provinces were themselves envisaged as buffer zones.<ref>Scarre ''Atlas'' 87</ref> (This was especially unlikely in the case of these regions, as the Illyrian emperors and officer class that dominated the late army would hardly relish seeing their native provinces reduced to combat zones).


== Unusual, ribbony necktie thing ==
Late Roman emperors continued major and frequent offensive operations beyond the imperial borders throughout the 4th century. These were strikingly similar to the pincer movements described by Luttwak as being characteristic of forward defence in the early Principate. For example, Valentinian I's campaign against the [[Quadi]] in 375.<ref>Ammianus XVI.11</ref> [[Julian]] in 356&ndash;60 and Valentinian I in 364&ndash;9 carried out annual operations across the Rhine designed to force the submission of local tribes and their acceptance of ''tributarii'' status.<ref>Ammianus books </ref>


[http://www.petaimg.com/uploads/1223690803.jpg What is this kind of tie called?] --[[User:Seans Potato Business|Seans]] '''[[User talk:Seans Potato Business|Potato Business]]''' 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The late army's "defence" posture thus contains many elements that are similar to the Principate army's, raising the question of whether defence-in-depth was ever in reality contemplated (or implemented) as a strategy. But the debate about defence-in-depth is still very much alive in academic circles.
:Invalid URL.--[[User:SquareOuroboros|SquareOuroboros]] ([[User talk:SquareOuroboros|talk]]) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


:"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [http://www.mrboots.com/general_store/western-scarves-ties.html] [http://www.gentlemansemporium.com/store/000771.php] - not to be confused with a [[Bolo tie]] (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --[[User:Maltelauridsbrigge|Maltelauridsbrigge]] ([[User talk:Maltelauridsbrigge|talk]]) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Role of cavalry ===
[[Image:Villa12(js).jpg|thumb|right|Late Roman cavalry officers (bottom right) in a hunting scene. In combat, most cavalrymen would, like infantry, wear a mail shirt and helmet. Mosaic from [[Piazza Armerina]], Sicily. 4th century]]
[[Image:Armed-horseman.JPG|thumb|right|200px|Bas-relief of a Parthian heavily armoured mounted warrior. He is wearing what is probably a chain-mail face-guard. This is possibly the kind of armour denoted by the Roman term ''[[clibanarius]]'', probably meaning "furnace man" in reference to the heat that would build up inside such all-encompassing armour. Note the armoured caparison for the horse. From Taq-e Bostan, Iran]]
A traditional thesis is that cavalry assumed a much greater importance in the 4th century army than it enjoyed in the 2nd century. According to this view, cavalry increased significantly as a proportion of the total forces and took over the leading tactical role from the infantry. It also enjoyed much higher status than in the 2nd century. At the same time, the infantry declined in efficiency and value in operations, leaving the cavalry as the effective arm. In fact, there is no good evidence to support this view, and plenty of evidence against it.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref>


== Creative Commons question ==
As regards numbers, the mid-2nd century army contained ca. 80,000 cavalry out of ca. 385,000 total effectives i.e. cavalry constituted ca. 21% of the total forces.<ref>Holder (2003) 120</ref> For the late army, about one third of the army units in the ''Notitia'' are cavalry, but in numbers cavalry were a smaller proportion of the total because cavalry units were on average smaller than infantry units.<ref>Elton (1996) 106</ref> For example, in the ''comitatus'', cavalry ''vexillationes'' were probably half the size of infantry ''legiones''. Overall, the available evidence suggests that the proportion of cavalry was much the same as in the 2nd century. Examples: in 478, a ''comitatus'' of 38,000 men contained 8,000 cavalry (21%).<ref>Elton (1996) 105&ndash;6</ref> In 357, the ''comitatus'' of Gaul, 13-15,000 strong, contained an estimated 3,000 cavalry (20-23%).<ref>Elton (1996) </ref>


Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--[[User:SquareOuroboros|SquareOuroboros]] ([[User talk:SquareOuroboros|talk]]) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
As a consequence, most battles in the 4th century were, as in previous centuries, primarily infantry encounters, with cavalry playing a supporting role. The main qualification is that on the Eastern frontier, cavalry played a more prominent role, due to the Persian reliance on cavalry as their main arm. This obliged the Romans to strengthen their own cavalry element, in particular by increasing the number of ''cataphracti''.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 205</ref>


== Collateral damage of fixing the financial system ==
The supposedly higher status of cavalry in the 4th century is also open to doubt. This view is largely based on underestimating the importance of cavalry in the 2nd century.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref> Cavalry always had higher status than infantry in the Principate: in the time of Domitian (r. 81&ndash;96), auxiliary cavalry was paid 20-40% more than auxiliary infantry.<ref>Hassall (2000) 336</ref>


What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? [[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
The view of some modern scholars that the 4th century cavalry was a more efficient service than the infantry was certainly not shared by Ammianus and his contemporaries. Ammianus describes three major battles which were actually or nearly lost due to the incompetence or cowardice of the Roman cavalry.<ref>Tomlin (1998) 117&ndash;8</ref> (1) The [[Battle of Strasbourg]] (357), where the cavalry, including cataphracts, were routed by their German counterparts at an early stage, leaving the Roman infantry right wing dangerously exposed. After fleeing behind the infantry lines, it took the personal intervention of Julian to rally them and persuade them to return to the fight. (The cataphracts were later ordered to wear female clothes by Julian as punishment).<ref>Ammianus XVI.12</ref> (2) During his Persian campaign (363), Julian was obliged to sanction two cavalry units for fleeing when caught by surprise attacks (one unit was [[Decimation (Roman army)|decimated]], the other dismounted). Later, the ''Tertiaci'' cavalry regiment was ordered to march with the camp followers for deserting the field just as the infantry was on the point of breaking the Persian line. (3) At the [[Battle of Adrianople]] (378), the Roman cavalry was largely responsible for the catastrophic defeat. ''Scholae'' units started the battle by an unauthorised attack on the enemy wagon circle, at a moment when their emperor [[Valens]] was still trying to negotiate a truce with the Goths. The attack failed, and when the Gothic cavalry appeared, the Roman cavalry fled, leaving the Roman infantry left wing exposed. The Gothic cavalry then routed the Roman left wing, and the battle was as good as lost.<ref>Ammianus XXXI</ref>


== President and VP boarding the same plane ==
In contrast, the excellent performance of the infantry, both ''comitatenses'' and ''limitanei'', is a recurrent feature of Ammianus' history. At the Persian siege of Amida, Ammianus' eye-witness account describes the city's defence by ''limitanei'' units as skilful and tenacious, if ultimately unsuccessful.<ref>Ammianus XIX.1&ndash;8</ref> At Strasbourg (357), the infantry showed remarkable skill, discipline and resilience throughout, saving the day at two critical moments.(see [[Battle of Strasbourg]] for a detailed account).<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 176&ndash;7</ref> Even at the disaster of Adrianople, the Roman infantry fought on, despite being abandoned by their cavalry and surrounded on three sides by overwhelmingly superior numbers of Goths.<ref>Ammianus XXXI.13</ref>


Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?[[User:Mr.K.|Mr.K.]] [[User_talk:Mr.K.|(talk)]] 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
=== Tactics ===
[[Image:Solidus Julian.jpg|Coin showing (obverse)|thumb|right|200px|Coin showing (obverse) head of emperor [[Julian]] (ruled 361&ndash;3) with [[diadem]] and (reverse) soldier bearing standard holding kneeling captive by the hair and legend VIRTVS EXERCITVS ROMANORVM ("Courage of the Roman army"). The soldier is probably a ''vexillarius'' (standard-bearer), as he is shown holding a standard. His officer status is evidenced by his breastplate-cuirass and ''[[pteruges]]''. Gold ''[[Solidus (coin)|solidus]]''. [[Sirmium]] mint]]
[[Image:Missorium Valentinian.jpg|thumb|right|200px|An impression of what a Late Roman shield wall would look like. From the Silver Missorium of Valentinian, an emperor flanked by infantrymen.]]
Just as the armour and weapons of the late army were fundamentally similar to those of earlier eras, so the army's tactics were based on traditional principles. The key elements of systematic scouting, marching formation, battle array, fortified camping, and siegecraft were all followed intact in the late period.<ref>Elton (1996) 243-63</ref> This section examines aspects of late tactics that differed significantly from Principate tactics.


:According to [http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,893923-1,00.html this article in TIME], it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, [[User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]] [[User talk:PeterSymonds|<small>(talk)</small>]] 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
One striking difference was that late army doctrine (and practice) aimed at avoiding open battle with the enemy if possible, unlike the early Principate doctrine of seeking to bring the enemy to battle as often and as quickly as possible.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 182</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 216</ref> The main motivation was likely not a reduced ability to win such encounters. The late army continued to win the great majority of its battles with barbarians.<ref>Elton (1996) 218</ref> Rather, the primary concern seemed to be the need to minimise casualties.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 182</ref> Pitched battles generally resulted in heavy losses of high-grade ''comitatenses'' troops, which could not be easily replaced. This in turn supports the hypothesis that the late army had greater difficulty than the Principate in finding sufficient recruits, and especially high-quality recruits. The late army preferred to attack the enemy by stealth or stratagem: ambushes, surprise attacks, harassment and manoeuvres to corner the enemy in zones where they could not access supplies and from which they could not escape (e.g. by blocking mountain passes or river crossings).<ref>Elton (1996) 216, 218-9</ref>

Where battle could not be avoided, the late army broadly followed traditional practice as regards array. Heavy infantry would be drawn up in a main line, normally straight and several ranks deep. Mounted archers were stationed, together with light-armed slingers, in front of the main infantry line. Cavalry would be posted on the wings (light cavalry on the outside). Foot archers would form the rear rank(s) of the main infantry line.<ref>Arrian ''Acies contra Alanos''</ref> There would be a reserve infantry and cavalry line of variable size to the rear of the main line, in order to deal with breaches in the main line and to exploit opportunities. At a distance of a mile or so to the rear of the army, its fortified camp of the previous night would contain its assistants and baggage, guarded by a small garrison. The camp could act as a refuge if the army was put to flight. Roman armies in the field never camped overnight without constructing defences. A ditch would be dug around the perimeter of the camp, and the spoil used to erect a rampart, which would then be topped with a palisade of sharpened wooden stakes arranged cross-hatched to form an impenetrable screen. Such defences, systematically patrolled, effectively precluded surprise attacks and enabled the troops to get a good night's sleep.<ref>Elton (1996) 251-2</ref>

Where the late army appears to have evolved to some extent is in battle tactics. The early Principate army had relied on a barrage of heavy javelins (''pila'') followed by a shock infantry charge, which was often sufficient to shatter, or at least disorganise, the barbarian line. After that, legionaries were trained to engage in aggressive ''mano-a-mano'' combat, striking the enemy in the face with the boss of their heavy shields (''scuta'') and stabbing them viciously with short swords (''gladii''). Such tactics very often resulted in the rout of the less well-equipped and trained barbarian foe.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 169</ref> The mounted archers and slingers in front of the main infantry line would loose their missiles on the enemy before the infantry lines engaged and would then hastily retreat to the rear of their own infantry line, whence, in conjunction with the foot archers already there, they would loose a continuous rain of missiles on the enemy foot by shooting over the heads of their own infantry.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) 137</ref> The cavalry's task on each wing was to scatter the enemy cavalry facing them and then, if possible, to encircle the main body of enemy infantry and attack them from the flanks and rear.

In the late army, while the role of archers and cavalry remained similar, the infantry relied less on the charge and more on steady pressure in close formation. The thrusting-spear (2-2.5m long) had replaced the ''gladius'' (just 0.5m long) as the primary mêlée weapon.<ref>Elton (1996) 109</ref> The extended reach of the thrusting-spear, combined with the adoption of oval or round shields, permitted a battle array where shields were interlocked to form a "shield wall".<ref>Ammianus XVI.12 (para. 44)</ref><ref>Lendon (2005) 261-268</ref> Spears would protrude through the 'V' shaped gaps formed between overlapping shields. The late army also relied more heavily on missiles.

This kind of combat was consistent with the aim of minimising casualties and its efficacy is illustrated by the Battle of Strasbourg. The battle was primarily a struggle of attrition where steady pressure on the barbarians resulted in their eventual rout. Despite a long and hard-fought struggle, Roman casualties were negligible.<ref>Goldsworthy (2000) </ref>

== The "barbarisation" theory ==

[[Image:Aetius.gif|thumb|right|200px|Drawing of [[Flavius Stilicho]], the barbarian-born general who was ''magister peditum'' (commander-in-chief) of West Roman forces 395&ndash;408. The general is depicted in the standard attire of a common foot soldier of the time when not in combat, wearing a ''chlamys'' (military cloak) over his tunic and carrying a heavy thrusting-spear and oval shield (in combat most late soldiers wore mail shirts and helmets). He was made a scapegoat for the barbarian invasions of 405&ndash;6, although in reality his military skill may have saved the West from early collapse. Derived (1848) from an ivory [[diptych]] at [[Monza]], Italy]]
The '''barbarisation theory''', ultimately derived from [[Edward Gibbon]]'s 18th-century ''magnum opus'', ''[[The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]]'', contains two propositions. (1) That the late army recruited much greater numbers of barbarian-born troops than the Principate army; and (2) that the greater number of barbarian recruits resulted in a major decline of the army's effectiveness and was a major factor in the collapse of the Western Roman empire. As discussed above, proposition (1) is probably correct, although it should be borne in mind that probably ca. 75% of the late army's recruits remained Roman-born. This section discusses proposition (2).

According to this view, the barbarian officers and men recruited by the late army, coming from tribes that were traditional enemies of Rome, had no real loyalty to Rome and often betrayed her interests, colluding with invading barbarian tribes, especially if those tribes were their own. At the same time, the spread of barbarian customs and culture led to a decline in traditional military discipline, and internal army disunity due to friction between Romans and barbarians. Ultimately, the army degenerated into just a collection of foreign mercenary bands that were incapable of defending the empire effectively.<ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 208</ref>

According to the historian A.D. Lee, there is little evidence to support this view and compelling reasons to reject it. Firstly, the late army clearly was not, and did not become, ineffective. The regular army in the West remained a formidable force until the political disintegration of the West in the period after 406. It continued to win most of its major encounters with barbarian forces e.g. the defeat of [[Radagaisus]] in 405.<ref>Lee (1997) 233</ref> Even after 406, the ''comitatus'' of the West rarely suffered defeats at the hands of barbarians, but progressively shrank in numbers to almost nothing over the period 395-476 as the Western government could no longer raise the necessary recruits and funds to replace losses incurred in civil wars and campaigns against barbarians. For example, it appears the Western ''comitatus'' contained 25% fewer first-grade regiments in 420 compared to 395.<ref>Heather (2005) 248</ref> In any case, the Eastern empire did not collapse, even though its army contained at least the same proportion of barbarians as the West, if not greater. An analysis of the ethnicity of Roman army officers named in the sources shows that in the period 350&ndash;99, 23% were probably barbarian-born. The same figure for period 449&ndash;76 officers, virtually all Easterners (as the Western army had largely dissolved) was 31%. <ref>Elton (1996) 148</ref> In the ''Notitia'', 55 Eastern regiments carry barbarian names, compared with 25 in the Western army.<ref>''Notitia Dignitatum'' passim</ref>

Recorded incidents of alleged barbarian treachery in the regular army are very few and isolated. There is a tendency by some modern scholars to ascribe to ancient barbarians a degree of ethnic solidarity that did not exist, according to A.H.M. Jones. For example, Germanic tribes were constantly fighting each other and even within such tribal confederations as the Franks or Alamanni there were bitter feuds between the constituent tribes and clans. The few known conflicts of loyalty only arose when the Roman army was campaigning against a barbarian-born soldier's own specific clan.<ref>Jones (1964) 622</ref> Ammianus himself never characterises barbarian-born troops as unreliable.<ref>Jones (1964) 621&ndash;2</ref> On the contrary, his evidence is that barbarian soldiers were as loyal, and fought as hard, as Roman ones.<ref>Elton (1996) 138</ref>

Most damningly for the theory, barbarian-born troops appear to have been especially concentrated in the elite units of the imperial escort armies. In the crack ''auxilia palatina'' infantry regiments, the proportion of barbarians in the ranks appears to have numbered anywhere between a third and a half of effectives.<ref>Elton (1996) 151</ref> This implies that they were considered highly reliable, as well as of first-rate combat capability.<ref>Lee (1997) 224</ref>

In conclusion, the barbarisation theory is rejected by many scholars as regards the regular Roman army of the 4th century. On the contrary, it is likely that barbarian recruitment was crucial to the army's continued existence, by providing a badly-needed source of first-rate recruits.<ref>Jones (1964) 621</ref><ref>Elton (1996) 152</ref><ref>Lee (1997) 223&ndash;4</ref><ref>Goldsworthy (2003) 209</ref>

==Citations==
{{reflist|2}}

== References ==
=== Ancient ===
* [[Ammianus Marcellinus]], ''[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Ammianus_Marcellinus Roman History]'' (late 4th c.)
* [[Zosimus]], ''[http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/index.htm#Zosimus Historia Nova]'' (5th century)
* ''[[Notitia Dignitatum]]'', ''[http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~harsch/Chronologia/Lspost05/Notitia/not_intr.html#Bibliotheca Augustana]'' (late 4th/early 5th c.)

=== Modern ===
* {{cite book |last=Bishop and Coulston |first=M.C. & J.C.N. |title=Roman Military Equipment From the Punic Wars to the Fall of Rome, 2nd ed. |year=2006 |isbn=1-84217-159-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Coello |first=T. |title=Unit Sizes in the late Roman Army |year=1996}}
* {{cite book |last=Duncan-Jones |first=Richard |title=Structure and Scale in the Roman Economy |year=1990}}
* {{cite book |last=Duncan-Jones |first=Richard |title=Money and Government in the Roman Empire |year=1994}}
* {{cite book |last=Elton |first=Hugh |title=Warfare in Roman Europe, AD 350&ndash;425 |year=1996 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0198152415}}
* {{cite book |last=Goldsworthy |first=Adrian |title=Roman Warfare |year=2000}}
* {{cite book |last=Goldsworthy |first=Adrian |title=Complete Roman Army |year=2003}}
* {{cite book |last=Hassall |first=Mark |title="The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XI (The High Empire 70&ndash;192)|year=2000}}
* {{cite book |last=Heather |first=Peter |title=Fall of the Roman Empire |year=2005}}
* {{cite book |last=Holder |first=Paul |title=Auxiliary Deployment in the Reign of Hadrian |year=2003}}
* {{cite book|last=Isaac |first=B. |title=Limits of Empire |year=1992}}
* {{cite book |last=Jones |first=A.H.M. |title=Later Roman Empire |year=1964}}
* {{cite book |last=Lee |first=A.D. |title="The Army" in Cambridge Ancient History 2nd Ed Vol XIII (The Later Empire 337&ndash;425) |year=1997}}
* {{cite book |last=Lendon |first=J.E. |title=Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity |year=2005 |isbn=978-0-300-11979-4}}
* {{cite book |last=Luttwak |first=Edward |title=Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire|year=1976}}
* {{cite book |last=Mattingly |first=David |title=An Imperial Possession: Britain in the Roman Empire|year=2006}}
* {{cite book |last=Southern & Dixon |first=P. & K. |title=The Late Roman Army |year=1996|isbn=0-300-06843-3}}
* {{cite book |last=Tomlin |first=R. S. O. |title="The Army of the Late Empire" in The Roman World (ed J. Wacher) |year=1988}}
* {{cite book |last=Woods |first=David |title="Subarmachius, Bacurius, and the Schola Scutariorum Sagittariorum" in Classical Philology, Vol. 91, No. 4 (Oct.), pp. 365-371, The University of Chicago Press
|year=1996}}

== See also ==
* [[Roman auxiliaries]]
* [[East Roman army]]
* [[Structural history of the Roman military]]
* [[Battle of Strasbourg]]

== External links ==
* [http://www.fectio.org.uk/fectio.htm# Late Roman army reenactors]
* [http://www.comitatus.net/Home.htm Comitatus] [[Historical reenactment]] and [[Living history]] group portraying the Late Roman army in northern England.

[[Category:Military history of ancient Rome]]
[[Category:Roman Empire]]

Revision as of 11:51, 10 October 2008

Welcome to the humanities section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.
skip to bottom
Select a section:
Shortcut
Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

   

How can I get my question answered?

  • Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
  • Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
  • Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
  • Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
  • Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
  • Note:
    • We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
    • We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
    • We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
    • We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.


Ready? Ask a new question!


How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

  • The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
See also:


October 4

jocasta

what kind of person is jocasta —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.50.166.184 (talk) 02:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

We have an article on her at Jocasta. You could also read any number of classic Greek plays that feature her as a character, including Oedipus Rex and Phoenician Women. Good luck! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The Man Who Liked Dickens

Hi. The article on A Handful of Dust states that the novel was an extrapolation of the author's short story The Man Who Liked Dickens. Does anyone know how I might be able to get hold of a copy of this short story, preferably online? Thanks! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The story has been anthologized frequently. In a hasty search, I'm not seeing it in any in-print anthologies, but copies of The Penguin Book of Horror Stories and The Book of Fantasy should be readily available in libraries and in the used-book market. The Complete Short Stories of Evelyn Waugh seems to be in print in both the United States and Britain. Since the story is still in copyright, I wouldn't expect to find it online. Deor (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - think I might have tracked down a copy of Horror Stories in the library! ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 07:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

As I recall, Waugh made only a few trivial changes when he used the story as Chapter VI of the novel, so don't expect any startling revelations. Deor (talk) 15:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it anything like "The woman who enjoyed kipling?" Edison (talk) 18:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Silly boy, I've never met a woman who'd ever admit to having kippled. Deor (talk) 20:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Affair of the Diamond Necklace question

What happened to the titular diamond necklace that so ruined Marie Antoinette? I can't seem to find any answers or pictures, just a single drawing of it that appears undated. (Image:Diamond Necklace Marie Antoinette.jpeg) Thanks! Zidel333 (talk) 18:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

It was taken apart and the constituent gems sold in London and Paris by the Count & Countess de La Motte. Probably some of these have been reused in other settings. - Nunh-huh 19:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The London Times, in January 1959, covering the "Ageless Diamond" exhibition at Christie's, stated that the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir displayed there was "part of the famous, or rather, notorious necklace" that brought about Marie Antoinette's downfall. The necklace stolen by the La Mottes had 629 diamonds. Among the sales mentioned by La Motte in his deposition were 22 stones from the "scallops" sold by him to Gray's, a jewel store in Bond Street, London. It is thought that the stones that were used in the Duchess of Sutherland's sautoir came from among those 22 stones. (We don't seem to have an article on sautoirs: these are rope necklaces, longer than opera length, falling below the waist, and often having a tassel or pendant.) - Nunh-huh 19:54, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! This definitely helps explain what happened. Seems a shame what happened to the necklace though, it would be a fabulous sight today. Any chance of pictures of some of the subsequent jewelry? Zidel333 (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

David Gisser

Can you please create a page on a man named David Gisser, he has engineering importance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.183.98.14 (talk) 22:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the reference desk. I believe you're looking for Wikipedia:Requested articles. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Sistine chapel ceiling - classification requested

I'm wondering if there is any internationally standardized system to define parts of the Ceiling of the Sistine Chapel? --Scriberius (talk) 22:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not completely sure I understand the question, but the "religious and public buildings of papal Rome" are all on the Unesco list of World Heritage Sites [1], using the following criteria:
"(1) to represent a masterpiece of human creative genius; (2) to exhibit an important interchange of human values, over a span of time or within a cultural area of the world, on developments in architecture or technology, monumental arts, town-planning or landscape design; (3) to bear a unique or at least exceptional testimony to a cultural tradition or to a civilization which is living or which has disappeared; (4) to be an outstanding example of a type of building, architectural or technological ensemble or landscape which illustrates (a) significant stage(s) in human history; and (6) to be directly or tangibly associated with events or living traditions, with ideas, or with beliefs, with artistic and literary works of outstanding universal significance. (The Committee considers that this criterion should preferably be used in conjunction with other criteria)".
Some of these criteria apply specifically to the ceiling. DAVID ŠENEK 09:20, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but I just need a classification system for locating parts the ceiling. --Scriberius (talk) 12:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just use the system used by the Vatican Museum? I doubt this is going to be standardized by ISO! Dmcq (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

McCain as Maverick

When and by whom was the term "Maverick" first used to describe John McCain? 76.103.138.164 (talk) 22:42, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

This profile mentions a 1993 Washington Post article that described McCain as "a conservative with maverick instincts." Not sure that was the first, though, it was soon afterwards that he got that reputation due to his efforts to towards campaign finance reform. Rockpocket 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
It was his gunner, "Goose", who first called him that. But then Goose died when he ejected into the canopy. And Meg Ryan cried a lot. But its OK, cuz Kelly McGillis was WAY hotter. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
James Garner was well known as a maverick way back in 1957, long before McCain. Perhaps he should run for president. Edison (talk) 05:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
He did and with Jack Lemmon no less! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
As an aside...Mel Gibson, another maverick, despite most people thinking of him as Australian, is eligible to be President himself, being born in the U.S. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:46, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I think his drunken anti-Semitic comments probably tanked any actual eligibility. --140.247.11.44 (talk) 15:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Didn't do this guy too much harm. Rockpocket 18:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Gibson is an Australian by association, if not by citizenship. He was certainly claimed as one of us when he made Mad Max etc, but when he makes drunken anti-semitic comments he morphs into "the American actor Mel Gibson". He was named an honorary Officer of the Order of Australia back in 1997 for his services to Australian cinema. As well as being a U.S. citizen, he's also an Irish citizen, so I guess he could stand for President of Ireland some day. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
What about Nick Cave, Jack? I'm interested to know whether he gets claimed as one of your own. He was born in Australia but hardly seems to live there much these days. --Richardrj talk email 07:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Oh, Nick's indisputably an Australian, Richard. We have a long history of performers, actors etc making their careers overseas, and then choosing to live o/s more or less permanently. They don't cease being Aussies just because of that. Unless they abandon their Australian citizenship, which various people have done. Others become dual citizens. I guess it all comes down to definition: a person could be simultaneously an Australian by birth, an American by citizenship, a Greek by residence, and a Briton by long association. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I guess it all comes down to whether they were born here, or were born Australian citizens overseas. Nick Cave was born here - end of story. Mel Gibson and Russell Crowe weren't, which enables us to claim them as Australians when they do good things but refer to them as foreigners when they do bad things. If Nicole Kidman ever did a bad thing, we'd probably remember only the fact that she was born in Hawaii as a U.S. citizen and conveniently ignore the fact that she also had Australian citizenship from birth through her parents, who just happened to be visiting Hawaii at the time. I'm not kidding, many people really do argue along these ridiculous lines when it suits their purpose, and the relevant talk pages are full of such debates. -- JackofOz (talk) 06:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


October 5

Today's bailout verses the 1929 depression

What are the differences between the great depression of 1929 compared to today's economic bailout —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.34.226 (talk) 14:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

For starters, the great depression was a recession and today's bailout is a bailout. To answer your question, this mentions a few differences and similarities. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 15:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
For starters, the Great Depression was no recession. The term wasn't popularly used to describe a brief economic contraction until the 1950s (although, many have redefined past depressions as recessions since then). As for the original question, the Great Depression was a stock market crash followed by a series of bad policy choices that coincided with poor weather (agriculture). From 1929 to 1933, the nominal size of the US economy declined from $103.6 billion to $56.4 billion, a drop of 45.6%. Consumer prices fell by 27.2%. In real terms, the economy dropped nearly 7.5% a year for four straight years. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
A check at google news archive shows that "recession" has been used much longer than since the 50s. What I had heard was that "depression" was a euphemism for the earlier "recession", but this seems to be just a silly story, "depression" seems more popular than "recession" long ago.John Z (talk) 22:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I thought depression was euphemism for panic. —Tamfang (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A severe recession is still a recession. I haven't come across a definition of recession which exclusively limited it to "brief contractions". Zain Ebrahim (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
By "brief" I mean contained in a year or so, rather than several years. My reference to recession being a 1950s term may not be correct, but I do recall hearing that the term was coined because government economists didn't want to suggest that the late 1940s or 1950s recessions were anything like the 1930s. DOR (HK) (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If you want a similar event in U.S. history, I would point to the New York City bailout. I don't remember the year and, because it is impossible to find anything about historical bailouts on Google right now, I can't search for it. Basically, it was nearly the same thing. Congress came up with the idea of sending a lot of taxpayer money to New York City to help cover losses made by large businesses - primarily based on rather stupid business decisions. -- kainaw™ 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That would be the this 1975 bailout. Incredibly, we don't have an article on it (any takers?) but it is covered briefly in the Presidency of Gerald Ford and History of New York City (1946–1977) articles. Ford at first refused to loan the city the billions it wanted, and the New York Daily News ran a headline: "Ford to City: Drop Dead." Antandrus (talk) 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

English Consumer Law

If an item has been purchased from a high street shop and it is faulty, is the consumer legally entitled to a refund? I have been reading many different pages on this and some say you are and others say they are only obliged to fix / replace. If the law states that a refund is obliged, can someone point me to the legislation that specifies this. Thanks Kirk UK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This is dealt with in our Sale of Goods Act 1979 article. "Within six months, beginning at the time at which the goods were delivered, the buyer can require the seller to repair the goods, reduce the price, or rescind (revesting property and requiring the return of any payment) the contract where the buyer successfully claims that the goods were not in accordance with the contract at the time of delivery." In other words, the consumer can make the choice. The supplier has to comply or counterclaim that there is no problem with the goods. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
And the specific legislation was amendments made to the Sale of Goods Act 1979 in the The Sale and Supply of Goods to Consumers Regulations 2002. --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

'.....the goods were not in accordance with the contract at the time of delivery.' does this mean that if the goods worked on the day of delivery but then 'died' after two days (it was a hard drive) is it arguable that they were not faulty at the time of delivery? I've been going through the articles mentioned above, I'm no lawyer and getting more confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.82.79.175 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The full term is six years (six months is just a change in the balance of evidence). BERR has a handy page on this regard here, which says Wherever goods are bought they must "conform to contract". This means they must be as described, fit for purpose and of satisfactory quality (i.e. not inherently faulty at the time of sale). and later the onus is on all purchasers to prove the goods did not conform to contract. For a transaction involving a business, the act notes that "durability" is one of the implied qualities (14(2b)e). Whether 2 days is an acceptable time for a "durable" hard drive to work, and the extent to which that failure indicates the product was "inherently faulty at time of sale" is a specific matter that we can't give you advice about. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 17:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
While this does not construe legal advice, I find it hard to believe in NZ that any electronic item would be considered durable if it only lasted 2 days Consumer Guarantees Act (the NZ law that applies to cases like these). And generally speaking, if an item dies/breaks, it would be considered the fault of the manufacturer/supplier/retailer unless you did something to cause the fault (for example, with a hard drive if you subjected it to forces beyond the allowed ranges). Most obviously, if the item shows any sign of external damage that is likely to cause or resulted from something that could be expected to damage the device it probably wouldn't be considered the manfacturers fault. However ultimately these claims would have to be tested in court or other appropriate forum. Whether this is the same in the UK, I don't know if you have a specific case in mind, you should see someone who can advise you Nil Einne (talk) 16:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

London railway station logos

A lot of London railway stations now have circular stylised logos, in various colours, like the X one shown in the image. Does anyone know where I can find a list of these logos, perhaps download them, or find out about their design? Thanks. ╟─Treasury§Tag►contribs─╢ 18:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Each of the 18 stations run by Network Rail has a logo like this. I would have expected Network Rail's website to have them, but I haven't been able to find any! -- Arwel Parry (talk) 22:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

is there any user with astrology and magick knowledge?

hi guys, is there anyone who knows about astrology, astral charts, the karma that you need to acomplish in life acording to your chart, ..crowley magick...and all that stuff? but probably a modern aproach? basically i'd like to discuss and find out what i need to acomplish and ger over in this life to be at peace with myself and others.

if you are versed in the subject and u think you can help me and you'd like to share views on the subject, i'll talk to you in your user page and we can exchange emails and stuff. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.11.185 (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and User talk pages should not contain extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Moreover, the reference desk is not a place for people to express opinions about your personal life and beliefs. You will probably find what you are looking for in a "magick" forum. In the meantime, have a look at magick and astrology, which might provide some of the information you seek. Gwinva (talk) 20:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Try also karma, Aleister Crowley, Jyotiṣa, divination, horoscope, astrological aspect, horoscopic astrology, & natal astrology. Strawless (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Why isn't this little girl....

wearing Hijab?. And why is she with other men (boys) if they're not related to her?. It's in Iraq and Muslims laws forbids women to be with other men if they are not realated to her.Here, it's on Commons. Thanks all. --Maru-Spanish (talk) 19:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Iraq is a secular society. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Moreover, not all people in Iraq are Muslims, and not all Muslims in Iraq are orthodox. Gwinva (talk) 20:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Did I read somewhere that girls aren't always expected to wear hijab until 'round about puberty? From their body language, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is a little sister to at least some of those boys... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Hijab is not compulsory until the age of puberty, which is 9 for girls. And then, it depends much on how tough and strict their parents and their community are. --Omidinist (talk) 05:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
And how could you know that they are not related?Mr.K. (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
You might enjoy watching this excerpt of a wonderful segment from the Wholphin (DVD) series about a 13 year-old Yemeni girl who refuses to wear hijab. --Sean 14:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
While not addressing Iraq, you might want to read Sex segregation and Islam Nil Einne (talk)

Election of 1824 electoral college

What were some future political problems indicated by the Electoral College voting patterns in the United States presidential election, 1824? Thanks! Reywas92Talk 20:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

As the first paragraph of the article you linked to says, the Democratic-Republican Party split into several different parties. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 20:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Sounds a bit like homework, so I'm giving you a few leads and hoping you research yourself - not eI was tempted to give several misleading answers but chose not to.
Andrew Jackson later said his only regrets were that he hadn't shot Clay or hung Calhoun. You might look into what Henry Clay did and the reaction.
Crawford suffered a stroke before the votes were counted. Look at elections and amendments after this. (Yes, he was only 4th here so it didn't matter, but one elction did have the candidate for a major party die before the electors voted.)
The Vice President was chosen so quickly - he had the majority of electors - while the Presidential one wasn't. think about how that wcould influence things.Somebody or his brother (talk) 00:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

book a rabbi carries

what book does a rabbi always carry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.199.70.242 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The Tanakh? Rockpocket 02:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I would think that the most likely book that a Rabbi would carry would not be a Tanakh but a thin book containing the afternoon (Minchah) and evening (Arvit) prayers. Simonschaim (talk) 04:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


October 6

New Photographic Genre (style), undeclared, as such, anywhere...

...according to three days of extensive research, truly searching all available internet means to find such. The term and the supporting examples of that term are not to be found anywhere on the internet. OK, granted, I am a newby here at WIKIPEDIA, however, I have also read all of the information regarding submissions, and am still unsure that I may not be submitting an article that may be considered "self-promotional".

It is NOT my intention to be such, nevertheless, the term for the style of imagery that I have developed and practiced is, in my opinion legitimate and unique and deserves to be brought forward to be added to and further explained, as I believe that there are a good number of photographers practicing this artistic style, though, not heretofore spoken of as such, and to date not named. What I would like to find out is how I may go about submitting such an article and claim the declaration of the naming of the style, absent the risk of pissing anybody off in doing so. Jaybiss (talk) 04:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Your enthusiasm is appreciated. Wikipedia carries articles on what can be verified by (generally) reliable, third-party sources. See WP:RS and WP:V. You would need to wait until your style and terminology were generally in use before they would be appropriate for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia also (generally) tries to dissuade people from writing about themselves, their relatives, their business, inventions. It is difficult to find and keep the right neutral point of view if you are writing about something close to you. It is not so much that you might piss someone off (and, even if you did, we should be kind enough not to show such feelings to a newcomer) as that you would likely find your article up for a "speedy delete" either on the basis of not being verifiable or on the basis of a conflict of interest. If you would like more information, please add a note to my talk page and I will try to help you myself or to direct you to someone who can. ៛ Bielle (talk) 04:32, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Short story called "The Mnemone"

I am looking for a science-fiction short story by Robert Sheckley. A friend of mine read it in a collection but has since lost the book, and now we are both in search of this story. I know little of the plot, except that it concerns a future in which there are only a few people who have memories, and they are called "mnemones" (a word coined by Sheckley). I have tried to search the Internet, but I have gotten literally one relevant hit: a link to the German Wikipedia's article on Sheckley, but I don't know German. I would really appreciate it if anyone could find out the name of the collection in which this was published, or anything, really. Thank you so much for your time! Cheers, Alitheiapsis (talk) 04:56, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Here's its Internet Speculative Fiction database entry. Looks like it's been included in four collections. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Political careers

I've been thinking lately that there might be some more stability in the US, economically and such, if politicians in appointed positions stayed in office longer. So, I looked through the cabinet of GWB and could only find one person who had been in their position for more than 5 years. That seems awfully short to me. If one were to compare this with people, maybe more specifically company executives, who aren't in politics, would both groups fall into a similar pattern or is there a difference? Dismas|(talk) 05:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Successful directors move roles/companies a lot too, there is a lot of head-hunting and shuffling for positions. This link (http://www.cio.com/article/153600/Average_CIO_Tenure_Slips_But_Still_More_Than_Four_Years) suggests an average of around about 5 years. The politician is not a specialist knowledge in the area they head-up, that isn't their role - behind the scenes and in the committee groups there will be knowledge specialists, advisers and people with vast amounts of specific experience. The same is true for company directors. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There are civil servants that hold their positions far longer. For example, "permanent secretaries" in the UK - the clue is in the name! --Tango (talk) 12:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Technically, the members of the president's cabinet are not politicians. Cabinet posts are not elected positions, and if a member of Congress (who is an elected official) is appointed to a cabinet post, he or she must resign the seat in Congress. Since the term of office for the president is set at four years, with a maximum of two terms, it's hard to see how someone could stay in a cabinet post.
As Tango points out for the UK, in the U.S. there are many career civil service positions, even at the highest levels. As this article notes, in 2004 there were just over 9,000 positions in the federal government into which a political appointee can go -- out of 2.7 million.
In addition, most cabinet secretaries can and do earn far more money (usually with far less grief) outside of government. That said, I'm not sure Alberto "I Can't Recall" Gonzales, the previous attorney general, is raking in the big bucks. If he were, would he remember? --- OtherDave (talk) 19:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
There have been some U.S. Cabinet members who have served over multiple administrations, even for presidents of different parties. For example, Norman Mineta served as Commerce Sect'y under Clinton, and was retained by GWBush as Transportation Sect'y. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Public Service was modelled in many ways on the UK Civil Service. The heads of our departments used to be called "Permanent Head"; they're called "Secretary" these days. Their jobs often come to an end when there's a change of government, if the new government thinks the individual is too closely aligned with the policies of the previous government. In some cases, it's very obvious why they would think that - the person had formerly been on the previous PM's personal staff, had strongly influenced that government's policies for a significant period, and had then been given a Secretary's job to ensure the policies they helped draft on the political side of the fence were being implemented on the apolitical side of the fence. So much for the promises not to politicise the apolitical Public Service, which serves the government of the day whatever it's political colour, withour fear or favour. In other cases, it's just a matter of their personal style, or having made public statements that were seen to be overly supportive of the previous government's philosophies. The new Howard (Liberal) government in 1996 sacked a whole swag of Labor-appointed Secretaries. The Rudd (Labor) government didn't immediately sack any Liberal-appointed Secs when it came to power in 2007, but I think there's been some reshuffling and departures since. Many of them are outside appointments these days, although public servants can still rise through the ranks and achieve a Secretary's job. But even back when there were "Permanent Heads", they were not appointments for life, or till the then mandatory retirement age. They did tend to stay in their jobs longer than they do these days, but they were often shuffled between departments. In that sense, "Permanent" meant having attained that level (the First Division) of the Public Service, not necessarily being permanently the head of a particular department. When it was felt their usefulness to the Public Service had expired, they'd be appointed as an ambassador or high commissioner, perhaps to an out-of-the-way country, and I'm sure that UK "permanent" heads were sometimes also accorded such "honours". -- JackofOz (talk) 20:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

companies for $0.99c

Where can I buy a company for less than a dollar? Mr.K. (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bankruptcy court. Once they've liquidated all the assets you can offer to buy everything that's left (which will be lots of debts) for whatever price you like and they'll likely say yes (they've no reason not to, although you may need to pay some admin fees as well). Of course, the company will be insolvent, so you can't actually do anything with it, but it would be yours. --Tango (talk) 12:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Going off at a slight tangent, Mr. K., I saw an interesting newspaper article a few days ago about a group of Germans who make their living by owning one share in every major listed German company. It seems that Germany´s laws are very protective of the rights of all shareholders, even the very smallest, and every time any German company makes a technical mistake which affects shareholders´rights, these people begin legal actions which the company needs to settle out of court, and that rarely comes cheap. Buying just one share is a relatively expensive thing to do, of course, thanks to trading costs, but if you buy and sell stocks and shares from time to time you can always sell all but one or two (two is a better number, for reasons I shan´t go into) of the shares you own, and over time you will build up a portfolio of these very small shareholdings. Strawless (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
That is called a strike suit. -- kainaw™ 21:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice idea, however I suppose it is more of an urban legend. Germans tend to think that investors are better off in the US. Anyway, I could buy 7-8 companies just with the brokerage's costs of buying two shares. Furthermore, shares of companies like Porsche cost some thousand dollars. Mr.K. (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2008 UTC)
FYI, shares in Porsche specifically, manufactured by Dr. Ing. h.c. F. Porsche AG, are currently trading on Deutsche Börse and FWB Frankfurter [2] at about 60 Euros (about $90 US/CAN). ៛ Bielle (talk) 15:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. My information was not up-to-date. After Porsche stock split (10:1) in March, its share price was not worth less than 100 Euros. Mr.K. (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

hindu

my daughter has a homework question which is . Are there any jobs hindus are not allowed to do which maybe against there religious beliefs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.2.95.246 (talk) 12:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Butcher, bull fighter, mice control?Mr.K. (talk) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Pope? Adam Bishop (talk) 13:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
BTW, we should not help you with homework questions. Even if it is for someone else. 80.58.205.37 (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well. Allegedly for someone else. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 16:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, assume good faith. Mr.K. (talk) 16:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Note: This isn't a "give examples of" question. It is a "yes/no" question. The answer is obviously "yes." -- kainaw™ 21:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
@Kainaw: although you are right, remember that homework questions are normally poorly written, and that the teacher doesn't expect that you simply answer 'yes'.Mr.K. (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
This particular homework question is very poorly written. Indeed, if I weren't Assuming Good Faith, I'd suspect that the OP is not a (barely literate) parent helping with her offspring's homework, but a child herself. Malcolm XIV (talk) 13:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The questioner could look at Caste system in India. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Politics and Tribalism

I read this statement in the comments section of a blog today, and as it's something I think about fairly often, and as my political friends just seem to roll their eyes whenever they point it out, I was wondering if it had a name:

"People on both the left and right tend to only accept facts as reported by the people on their own side, because "the other side are liars." And I think it's just as likely that Palin is simply deluded herself (all politicians start their lives in the rank and file) as that she's deliberately treating the people with contempt; in other words, those "facts" that have been pointed out to her aren't really "facts" at all because they come from people she doesn't trust."

MelancholyDanish (talk) 19:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)MelancholyDanish

A strong case of confirmation bias and selection bias, perhaps? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 19:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It may sound amazing given what they say, but I believe politicians do normally believe what they say rather than ever deliberately lying. As an aside (or just ignore this as own research) an interesting thing I've observed is people tend to point out their own faults in others, even if there's something far worse they could say. I wonder if there's a term for that. Dmcq (talk) 20:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This is simply called democracy. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite that far, Dmcq. Very often, probably the majority of occasions, they really are speaking the truth, or what they believe to be the truth. But very often, they're publicly supporting a position of their party which in private they criticise and try to change. There are good reasons for a party to have a unified public position on an issue, even if behind the scenes there's all sorts of squabbling going on. And there have been many, many, many cases where politicians utter outright lies - there's no better way of putting it. They know it's not truthful, but they say it anyway because it suits their purpose and they think they can get away with it. This may not be true of any one politician chosen at random, but it's certainly true of them as a whole. (Later comment: It's also true of human beings as a whole, not just politicians.) -- JackofOz (talk) 21:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Don't forget, too, that in the old days, you could run for national office and tell a group of farmers in rural America one thing, and union officials in cities something else; that changed with mass media and reporting of national campaigns, of course. (Not sure which was the first reported on - Truman's 1948 whistle stop campaign, perhaps?) So, what you might be hearing, too, might just be a case of telling supporters what they want to hear - or think they want to hear - and it gets reported now whereas 75-100 years ago it didn't. And, int he case of national interviews and speeches, they have to make the choice to tell their supporters that or not.
Which also explains why politicians don't seem to hit on any real issues or what specific plans they have - at least from what little I've heard, though I'm disenchanted enough not to listen much anymore. (Though I will vote - maybe for Mickey Mouse :-) Somebody or his brother (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Sort of off topic, but that sort of statement is very similar to the type of statements Karl Popper made in one of the first papers in 'Conjectures and Refutations'. The claim basically goes that people tend to think of those who believe differently as either evil or ignorant. They either know the truth and are ignoring it for personal profit or are too dumb to know the truth. He claims this is the result of a conception of truth where truth is obvious. With this conception, if someone is exposed to some situation then the truth of the matter will result from any fair-minded individual. Needless to say that he thinks this conception of the truth is wrong.--droptone (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clock painting

What's the name of the famous painting with a bunch of melted clocks in the desert? I had thought it was like the Essence of Memory, but I couldn't find anything with that name. Thanks, Reywas92Talk 23:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

You were close: The Persistence of Memory. Deor (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Afro-Desi

Is there such word called "Afro-Desi"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.187 (talk) 23:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

There's aphrodisiac, meaning something that arouses (or is believed to arouse) sexual desire. Is that the word you had in mind? --- OtherDave (talk) 01:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
He probably means someone of mixed African-South Asian descent. Desi refers to people from Pakistan, India, and I think Bangladesh. That article has other terms that include African countries but I don't know if anyone has ever used "Afro-Desi" specifically. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's also the title of an album by Martin Denny and [3] Afro Desi, on the Liberty label, in the late 1950s. ៛ Bielle (talk) 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't help picturing Desi Arnaz with an Afro instead of the Brylcreem look which was typical. In fact his bongo music could be considered Afro-Cuban. Babalu! Edison (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 7

Existing Gulags?

Do gulags still exist in North Korea? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean prisoner work camps? If so, they exist all over. See Labor camp. GrszX 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
But there's nothing about North Korea specifically. Is there an article on this? 203.188.92.70 (talk) 04:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, here we go. GrszX 04:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
It's peculiar, labour camp doesn't refer at all to the US, whereas prison farm deals only with the US. Anyway my guess is by 'gulag' the questioner was really thinking of places where political prisoners are included in the inmates and they do forced labour. Dmcq (talk) 07:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Industries open to the world to compete in but utterly dominated by a region or cultural bloc

For instance international corporate law is shockingly Anglo-American. 95 of the largest firms are UK/USA and a few of the remaining are Australian. Shipbuilding according to the latest stats (our article needs catchup) is 90-something% East Asian. Many European countries fully participate in international finance/business and have high English fluency so the composition of the list is shocking. Many American/European countries had as late as the 70s, the majority of expertise and infrastructure, so how did that reversal happen? Anyways, can you think of any other you-would-think open industry that is so dominated? Lotsofissues (talk) 07:37, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

It does sound awful to dominate in law rather than producing something useful. I believe there was a state in the US which banned lawyers for a time. In Nigeria the people going to university all wanted to study law rather than anything else. Now they dominate in the email scam market. Dmcq (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Market dominance deals with some of this at a company level. Dmcq (talk) 09:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You could also look at Business cluster: the theory is that specialized industries tend to cluster in a single geographic area, even when there are competing firms. --Xuxl (talk) 13:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Treasury bonds' risk

If everything has a residual risk, why do so many people consider treasury bonds risk free?Mr.K. (talk) 10:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at Risk-free interest rate#Why risk-free?. Remember that "risk-free" (in this case) generally refers to credit risk. So even if the US Treasury never defaults on its obligations, those assets may carry other market risks which is what you might be referring to as residual risk. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I suppose we must consider at least a tiny chance of default. Nothing can be risk-free. Nobody expects that serious governments will print money to pay debt. And what if a meteorite rain smashes major US cities?Mr.K. (talk) 10:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
"Serious" governments won't end up in that situation very often. Extreme events are dealt with in the link above. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure Mr. K knows that risk is relative. "Risk-free" most often is verbal shorthand for "it's very unlikely that you'll lose money." Also, because some government securities sell at or below the real rate of inflation, in a sense you're paying for your low risk at the start, since the "investment" will end up with negative return. One way of looking at risk in government securities is to imagine a choice between two governments: if you could choose between a two-year U.S. treasury bond at 2.11% (the yield in the 9/30 auction), what interest would you demand from a two-year bond from the Russian or Chinese government? There's a pragmatic definition of risk. --- OtherDave (talk) 12:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The way I look at it is that if the US government (or another government whose debt is considered risk-free) were to default on its debt then the economic crisis that would ensue (or, rather, that would have to be already in progress) would be so major that the maths would break down anyway so it doesn't matter that one of your assumptions proved false. For example, the efficient market hypothesis is going to fail because computer systems won't be able to cope with the volume of trades, the assumption that people are rational actors will go out the window (during panic people do not behave rationally), etc. That your risk-free rate wasn't actually risk free will be the least of your worries. --Tango (talk) 14:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Offline information

What kind of information can't be found online?Mr.K. (talk) 10:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Check out the Resource Request page and notice what sorts of requests do not get filled. Now that isn't an indication that the information is not online, but I suspect there are a few there which are not going to be found online (like the three volumes of Monograph of the land and freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles). The factors that will decrease the likelihood of finding it online are: rarity (related to age of the information and overall availability), overall public interest, storage medium of the information (information printed on bad paper in the 1700s is unlikely survive the ravages of time nor will scrolls from Ancient Greece and Rome that happened to be in the hands of monks in Medieval Europe who thought the material was worthless and erased/wrote over the material), and interest by those who enjoy the material (rapid fans of certain types of fiction are likely to make even fairly obscure pieces available). The older the information is the more likely random chance will play a role in what survives (e.g. look at the extant works of ancient authors, there may be a correlation between the artistic worth of what survives but I suspect there will be exceptions).
Another place you could check out are the master lists compiled by the folks who make scanned comics available. They have a master list of all the comics produced by different companies and mark whether a scanned copy is available. I do not have the list handy and can't quite locate a copy, but I know several exist. If I remember correctly, the list follow the factors I listed above. Older comics were less likely to be available, along with comics that were not particularly popular.--droptone (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Other possibilities:
  • Why don't they just get over it?
  • Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
  • Does a person who posts philosophy-undergrad questions ever leave the basement, or can pizza just get downloaded?
--- OtherDave (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Expensive information

What kind of information can't be found for free?Mr.K. (talk) 10:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of information...You cannot find out detailed information about your health (from a medical professional) without paying - either you pay, your insurance company pays or your government pays. On IMDB you cannot find out certain information without 'IMDB pro' which costs money. In stock market trading terms a lot of information is free (level 1 I think?) but information at higher levels costs extra. Most knowledge that can be sold for a profit will be sold for a profit, though similarly with the right tools and techniques a hell of a lot of that info can be found for free...Or to use a point from Good Will Hunting you spent 100 thousand on a fancy education you could've gotten for $100 in late book fees at the library. 194.221.133.226 (talk) 12:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Proof of address

Why do banks care where we really live? Is that regulated by law? Or do they need our addresses for a potential civil law litigation? Mr.K. (talk) 11:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In Europe they must have proof of address to comply with money laundering legislation. If you deposit or withdraw a large sum they must ask you what it is for and record the answer. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Do they ask what is it for or where did it come from? What if you don't know what is if for?Mr.K. (talk) 11:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
They usually ask both. You can answer "general living expenses" or "top up current account". They might think that was odd if the sum was very large. Of course in the current climate you might say you felt it was safer to keep the cash under the bed and they would probably believe you. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Similar laws in the U.S. - Banks must demonstrate an attempt to avoid transactions of illegal funds. It used to be that banks should use ignorance as a defence. Now, they must show that they asked who owns the money (ie: who are you, where do you live, what do you do) and what the money is for (ie: where did you get it, what do you want to do with it). In all reality, the bank doesn't care. They are required to ask the questions, but not required to ensure the answers are truthful. -- kainaw™ 18:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Another reason is that if the person dies, they have a way of identifying the account. Accounts are frozen till the person in charge comes and asks for them. Yes, the Social Security number helps, but it's just another failsafe to make sure the person is receiving funds fromt he right deceased person. In fact, banks often have someone who scans the obituaries every day; if they read, "John Smoth, of 22nd Street in x township," and they have 3 John Smiths with accounts, they more easily know which one to freeze till the estate process begins.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

do violinists get callouses the way guitar players do?

do all stringed players? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.120.232.170 (talk) 13:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I am a guitarist, and not a violinist, so this is just speculation, but any activity which produces friction at the same point on the skin is likely to produce calluses. See Callus for more information. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Cellists certainly do, particularly on the side of the left thumb, from playing in thumb positions; to the degree that if you're as out of practice as I am, it can be quite painful until you develop the calluses. I also remember a friend once taking a week-long taster course on the sitar, and painting his fingers with something thick and robust after the first day. --ColinFine (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Recognizing that this is original research of the most ghastly kind (personal experience), I can tell you that as a violinist myself, the answer is YES. You only get them on the four fingers of your left hand, and a bit on the side of your thumb sometimes. Antandrus (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

fly"s eye dome

where do I buy fly"s eye domes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.144.127.86 (talk) 14:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

When was the last time Michigan voted for a Republican presidential candidate?

I'm from Michigan, and I know it's a strongly democratic state (or at least it has been for the past several presidential elections), and I was just wondering when the last time was when a Republican presidential candidate won in Michigan. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

See United States presidential election, 1988 -- kainaw™ 18:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, kainaw! I knew it had been a while, but wasn't sure when. Kind of ironic, because Jackson, Michigan is the birthplace of the Republican party... --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
You may find people who dispute that. From History of the United States Republican Party "The Little White Schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisconsin, where the Republican Party was first organized locally in 1854" - However, this apparent discrepancy is explained by the following from www.gop.com: "The first informal meeting of the party took place in Ripon, Wisconsin, a small town northwest of Milwaukee. The first official Republican meeting took place on July 6th, 1854 in Jackson, Michigan." [4] (Pick your definition of "birthplace".) -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The question of the "birthplace of the Republican party" is actually kind of indeterminate, since "Anti-Nebraska" meetings and coalition groups fairly spontaneously sprung up all over the northern U.S. in response to the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854. The place of the first meeting to use the word "Republican" to describe itself (or the first meeting for which there is currently-surviving evidence that it used the word "Republican") does not mark the founding of the Republican party in any very meaningful sense... AnonMoos (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

politic in USA

Can I know the processus of appointment of high personalities in USA? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.207.217.5 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can look at Politics of the United States for information on the organization of the government, Elections in the United States for information on how political leaders are elected to office, or even read the United States Constitution, which lays out the entire process officially. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
In USA, high personalities tend not to go into politics, but stick closer to the Entertainment field.--Wetman (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Some high personalities have simply claimed they stopped using years ago, when running for office. Edison (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't bite the newbies. The last two posters are joking about the fact that "high" can refer to drug usage. The original poster was obviously talking about high political offices. --Anonymous, 22:45 UTC, October 8, 2008.

Searching for an article on the problem of bearerless names

Salutations. I'm planning on writing an article on Meinong's Jungle, and I want to see if there are other similar articles I should look at first. The basic topic is the problem of bearerless names; that is, "how can we refer to things that don't exist?", "why is it that people seem to have serious converstaions about Harry Potter when there is no such person" etc. However, I can't find articles on The present King of France (a famous example), problem of bearerless names, non-referring names etc. The question arose most prominently around the birth of analytic philosophy amidst exchanges between Alexius Meinong, Gottlob Frege and Bertrand Russel. There's an article on the theory of descriptions, but that is only a solution to the problem. Can anyone find the Wikipedia article I am looking for? the skomorokh 20:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

King of France? Do you mean the Legitimist claimnant, the Orleanist claimnant, the Bonapartist claimnant, or the Jacobite claimnant? I've always found "the present King of France" to be a silly example, since you are actually discussing something that does exist. --Carnildo (talk) 21:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Really? Who would that august personage be, Carnildo? (Btw, 10 marks for consistency with "claimnant", but it's spelled "claimant".) -- JackofOz (talk) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Possibly The King of France? ៛ Bielle (talk) 22:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I sometimes refer to such persons as the king-subjunctive. —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you'll like definite description better than theory of descriptions? -Nunh-huh 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I proposed including Image:L actuel roi de France.jpg on the Definite description article, but no one seconded my suggestion... AnonMoos (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
We have an article empty name. Algebraist 10:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Algebraist for hitting the jackpot, and everyone else for the entertaining sideshow! the skomorokh 12:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Need reference re: Aroostook War

Dear Wikipedians,

Wikipedia's article on the Aroostook War says that in February 1839, Mainers heard that the Mohawks had offered their military support to Quebec. I need to know the origin (reference, citation) for that fact, for an article I am writing on early West Branch Penobscot settlers.Mainehist (talk) 23:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

October 8

Opinions

Resolved

After looking up what an opinion is on Wikipedia. It made me greatly saddened that there was no truth to our personal judgments, beliefs, and thoughts. Why personally, do you live knowing that we cannot penetrate the system of nature in truth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.170.45.41 (talk) 02:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Although the mysteries of life and death are ultimately unknowable, I go on living because sometimes I get pie. —Kevin Myers 04:12, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If there was no truth whatsoever in your personal judgements, beliefs and thoughts then you might have difficulty in continuing to live. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
As a Christian, I have faith in the one who does know the unknowable, and that He (Jesus Christ) lives in me. So, faith plays a large part in how some poeple can live.Somebody or his brother (talk) 12:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is absolutely wrong to say that there is no truth to judgments, beliefs, thoughts. There are certainly beliefs with more truth than others. The fundamental epistemological issue is not so much whether truth is out there (which seems hard to avoid), but whether we do know it or can know it. --140.247.11.23 (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My body continues to live despite my belief that this life is all that there is and that there is no God. I see no scientific reason why I should suddenly die because of my beliefs and in fact I'm very happy to continue living this way. Dmcq (talk) 19:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Zhuang people

I'm curious: How assimilated are these folks into the Chinese national fabric? (Are they anywhere near as assimilated as Manchu and Han?) It would be great if responders could note the extend of their Chinese studies/living experience.

Lotsofissues (talk) 08:17, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Zhuang are of Tai origin, a people who migrated south from central China roughly 5000 years ago. Because of their long history in China, many Zhuang are assimilated with other Chinese groups in these urban areas.

2008 Thai political crisis

Okay, so some Thai people are protesting for less elected members of parliament and more appointed members. Do they "hate freedom" or something? 118.90.128.113 (talk) 08:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, basically, they (once known as the People's Alliance for Democracy, good Orwellian name) hate democracy, because they are (relatively) wealthy elites from the cities and military people who don't want the majority of poor farmers to have a lot of influence on how they run the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 09:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Swaziland's Territory Claims

In recent years we have seen Swaziland claiming some Territory from the Republic of South Africa and that the latter must give back the claimed territories so I want to know how far has Swaziland go in claiming the territories what measures are taken by Swaziland and if it can be possible to get the claimed land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zikodze (talk • contribs) 09:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

As a practical matter, Swaziland is weaker in almost every respect than South Africa... AnonMoos (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Our Swaziland article doesn't seem to mention this matter? Rmhermen (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Pashtun

I am confused. Are the Pashtun people of Pakistan are really Pashto-speaking Pakistanis or Afghanistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

There are both Pashtuns from Afghanistan and Pashtuns from Pakistan living in Pakistan -- but some Pashtuns think it would be a lot better to have a separate Pakhtunistan in place of the current Pakistan-Afghanistan border... AnonMoos (talk) 17:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
This situation isn't unusual, of course, and there are large numbers of such national minorities almost everywhere you look. The modern state of India has about 1,500 different languages within its borders. Most of the borders of Asia, as with the rest of the world, have been decided by conquest and/or by the convenience of colonial powers pulling out, only a very few by the wish for self-determination shown by indigenous people united by speaking a particular language. Strawless (talk) 23:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Baloch sindhi film industry

There is no Baloch or Sindhi film industry in Pakistan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.74.18 (talk) 14:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure there is. List of Sindhi-language films and this google search should help. Fribbler (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Cults

I have a question about cults that has been puzzling me for a long time. I have read the article on cults and it's very informative but I still have some doubts. See cults may happen to be initiated by or grown around a single personality but they often continue after the founder is gone, the leadership taken by some other member. Now this new member also joined the group at some time, no doubt believing in the legitimacy of the cult's basic tenets. Now assuming we are talking about real "cults" (the kind that mislead people), how long does it take for a new member to be "in on the secret", and thus be in a position to run the cult? Secondly, why does he/she do it, why don't they just spill the beans... what motivates members to perpetuate the fraud? Take the case of scientology, Ron Hubbard may have started it out of whatever motivation, but how many of the group (obviously top of the hierarchy) know what the real deal is, when did they come to know about it, and why did they chose to perpetuate the myth? The question is why, how, and why do the "preys" (ones that were taken in by the chincanery) become the "predators" (that is ones who run the whole thing and attract new converts). Thank you very much. -- ReluctantPhilosopher(talk)

The people who lead a cult after the death of the founder may well be true believers, even to the point of being martyrs for the cause, rather than the cynical con men you posit, who share the "secret" that it is a scam. Some cults really get going only after the founder is dead, and are spread by people who never met him. Edison (talk) 15:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
My question is about the cynical con men who share the secret. ReluctantPhilosopher (talk) 16:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Only God knows the difference.--Wetman (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
If those who take over are cynical con men or woman (and please note the "If"; I take no position on this), then, as with con men and woman in every field, the cult is merely the background or environment in which they operate their scam. A scam is a scam -in the boardroom, the church, a living room, a club. What the con person gets out of any one of them is a mix of personal power and prestige, along with worldy goods, all to feed a massive ego. ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ahem. Stepping into it with both feet. See Paul the Apostle. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

what makes a new edition of a book?

What constitutes a new edition of a book? We are discussing this at talk:Basic Chess Endings. The hardback book came out in 1941, and it was reprinted at least as late as 1960. Some of them had "second edition" and "fourth edition" although there was no change at all to the text. (I consider these reprints, not new editions.) Starting about 1969 to 1971 paperback copies were printed with exactly the same text. At least ten paperback printings were done. So if the text has not changed, can it be a new edition? (The book was revised in 2003.) Bubba73 (talk), 17:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The (dictionary) meaning seems to stem from printing. An "impression" is "one of a number of printings made at different times from the same set of type, without alteration (distinguished from edition)", whereas an "edition" is "one of a series of printings of the same book, newspaper, etc., each issued at a different time and differing from another by alterations, additions, etc.". So, by that definition, it's a different edition if they substantially have to re-set the type. For example a big-print version is a "big print edition", even if the text is identical with its regular-type cousin. So changing the font, changing the chess diagrams to a different style, or adding a different prolog would make it a different edition, as would a revision of the text. I guess small fixes for typos and fixing printing snafus would be added between impressions without counting as an edition. Now whether the dictionary meaning really relates to a reasonable expectation that a modern consumer might have, that a new edition is a change so great that buying the book again might well be worthwhile, as another matter. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 18:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. From the original publication in 1941 until the revision in 2003, the only thing that changed was hardcover to softcover, the cover, and the page that gives the copyright, the revision date, the printing number, and the ISBN. So in my mind, these were all the same edition. Bubba73 (talk), 19:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, the ISBN. To normal people an ISBN is just a dumb number than you use to order a book at the library. To people in publishing land an ISBN is a magic key that makes book projects live (publishing projects spring into life when someone orders the ISBN, ISBN is the billing code that everyone uses to bill each other during prepress, and of course ISBN is what everyone calls a book when ordering it). So if you're a publisher and you want to get someone to print a book for you, they probably want you to give them an ISBN for it ('cos their systems all work off ISBNs). If you're publishing an old book (from the ancient times before ISBN) then you order an ISBN for it and that's what you have them print it under. But now there's one (or more) kinds of the book hanging around in the world that don't have that ISBN, and your new one that does. As you can't go back and write an ISBN on all those extant copies, I guess you call the new one "2nd edition", just to differentiate it. But that doesn't seem to explain your BCE problem, as it has different versions (which may, but probably aren't, editions) some with ISBNs and some without. Perhaps "edition" for this case isn't going to help disambiguate, and if you want to refer to a specific version you need to do so by printing too. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
A self-publishing service Lulu has the following criteria: If you make the following types of major changes, it is considered a new edition:
  • Adding, removing or moving text
  • Adding or removing chapters or an index
  • Changing the sequence of chapters
  • Dramatically changing your cover design

MaxVT (talk) 19:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, none of that happened except changing the cover design. My hardback copy doesn't have a dust jacket, and I don't know what the dust jacket looked like. Then there were at least three versions of the paperback version cover before the 2003 revision. Bubba73 (talk), 20:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Electoral College

To Whom it May Concern

I heard the following and would like to know if it is indeed factual:

With regards to the Electoral College, if a candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Electoral College vote is irrelevant.

Now, I know that in 2000, George W. Bush won the electoral while losing the ‘popular’ vote, but neither candidate had a majority as Ralph Nader had several million votes. My question is can a candidate with 50.1% of the popular vote, or the majority of the popular vote, lose the election? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.105.156 (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is even possible (though won't happen) that a candidate can receive zero votes from the people but still win the election. There is no Federal requirement that electoral votes be based on the votes of the people. I feel that I should also point out that there is no such thing as the "popular vote." People are not voting for a Presidential candidate. They are voting for an elector who will cast a vote for a Presidential candidate. So, if I vote a South Carolina elector and you vote for a Missouri elector, we are voting for two different people even though our electors may be voting for the same candidate. -- kainaw™ 19:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
What I understand from that is that the only vote that really matters is the electoral college vote; hence, if any vote is "irrelevant", it's the popular vote. Wouldn't the answer therefore be "No", rather than "Yes"? -- JackofOz (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, a candidate may have more than 50% of the population vote for an elector that is sworn to vote for that candidate and still lose the election by not having enough electors to win the election. Depending on the state, the number of people per elector is different. In heavily populated states, you get more people per elector. In less populated states, there are less people per elector. That is why there is not a 1-to-1 correlation between people's votes and elector's votes. -- kainaw™ 19:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The electoral college is composed of the electors chosed by each state who convene together to themselves choose the president. Now, the U.S. Constitution leaves it up to each state as to how that state chooses its electors. It would be perfectly legal, for example, for all of the electors to simply be appointed by the governor, with no voting at all done by the people. Popular elections are only required in order to elect members of the House (in the original Constitution) and the Senate (since the 17th ammendment in 1913). The constitution does require that all states vote for national offices and for electors on the same day, but such a requirement could still be carried out such that the Governor of the state would announce the slate of electors on Election day, without any attempt at a popular election. The fact that every state holds popular elections to determine how their electors are appointed is a de facto reality, but it is not in any way required by law at the Federal level.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Furthermore, it's happened. In the United States presidential election, 1876, Democrat Samuel Jones Tilden received 51.0% of the popular vote, but lost to Republican Rutherford Birchard Hayes (47.9%) in the electoral college, 184 to 185. -- 128.104.112.147 (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
1876 was a special case because in at least 2 states, there were disputed returns; much like Florida in 2000. Ultimately, the case went to the Supreme court who abdicated responsibility, and appointed a 5 member commission to decide the fate of the election. The commission ended up 3-2 republican, so the gave the disputed electors to Hayes, the republican. The election could have easily gone the other way. As other examples, there have been other cases of elections where there were some electoral college problems:
  • In United States presidential election, 1800, under very different election rules, there was a dead tie for the presidency between Aaron Burr and Thomas Jefferson, so it went to the House of Reps to choose. It took 36 ballots and a deal brokered by Alexander Hamilton to decide in favor of Jefferson over Burr. Burr would later famously shoot Hamilton over the issue. As far as popular vote, most states didn't hold a popular election to decide electors, and they were merely appointed by state legislatures, so it is impossible to say who got the most popular votes. As a result, the electoral college was reorganized under the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
  • In United States presidential election, 1824 four candidates split the vote, with Andrew Jackson holding a plurality, but not the 50+% majority of all electoral votes needed to win. The decision then went to the House of Reps again. Under the rules of the constitution, only the top 3 candidates get to be voted on by the house. The fourth place candidate, Henry Clay, hated Jackson and used his influence as speaker of the House to give the election to Adams, who had neither a plurality of the electoral college votes nor of the popular vote (at least in those states that held a popular vote. Several in 1824 still left it to the legislatures to appoint the electors).
  • In United States presidential election, 1960, was a very confusing one from an electoral college standing. Kennedy carried 22 states to Nixon's 26 states, and only won the popular vote by less than a tenth of a percent, and had only a 49.7% plurality of the popular vote. However, Kennedy carried all of the "big states" except for Nixon's home state of California. The election is noted for allegations of widespread voter fraud, as the close race in Illinois was largely decided by Chicago, whose mayor Richard Daley was a staunch Democrat. Also, several Democratic party electors pledged to Kennedy refused to vote for a northerner, and instead cast their ballots for Harry Byrd.
  • Like 1960, the United States presidential election, 1888 neither candidate had a majority of the votes, though Grover Cleveland had the clear plurality over Benjamin Harrison, (0.8% advantage) in the popular vote, Harrison won more electoral college votes. As a quirk, Cleveland, who won every state south of the Mason Dixon, didn't even win his home state of New York.
Just some food for thought heading into the 2008 election... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


The state legislature could appoint anyone to appoint the electors, or they could order a coin toss, or drawing for high card, or a foot race, or any other means to decide whose slate of electors gets to cast the state's electoral votes. They just have to establish a process then follow it. Edison (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Senators Obama and McCain, after the election

If Obama wins, will McCain still be a Senator? If McCain wins, will Obama still be a Senator? If so to both, for whichever becomes President, who will take their Senate seat? --140.247.249.14 (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Losing a Presidential election does not eject you from the Senate. Becoming President does. The state will hold a special election to elect a new Senator (similar to what would happen if a Senator left office for any other reason). This makes me think... Which one do you want as President just walking around and giving speeches and which one do you want in the Senate writing and passing laws? -- kainaw™ 20:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
For example, John F. Kennedy was elected president in November 1960, then resigned his Senate seat on December 22. Massachusetts Governor Foster Furcolo appointed Benjamin A. Smith II to serve in his place, until the next possible election, when JFK's brother Ted Kennedy was elected.
The 17th Amendment allows the governor to fill an opening until an election. GrszX 20:13, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I understand that a senator/representative who wins the presidency must resign before 20 January in order to be eligible to be sworn in. But can they be forced to resign? If Obama wins, say, then changes his mind about the presidency and chooses not to resign as a senator, what would happen? -- JackofOz (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Reading the constitution literally, I think he stops being a senator. There is provision for the resignation of a president (originally in Article II, Section 1, now in the 25th Amendment), but not for a president-elect. The articles about electing a president via the electoral college (also originally II.1, now in the 12th Amendment) say that the candidate winning the electoral vote "shall be the president", and if the election goes to the House of Representatives, then they "shall choose the president". But Article I, Section 6, requires that "no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office." If he's required to become president, but he's also required not to be both a senator and the president, then it logically follows that his term as senator is terminated.
(And before someone says "what if he refused to take the presidential oath of office" -- that would not stop someone from becoming president; it would just mean that he couldn't exercise his powers of office. The requirement for an oath or affirmation (also in II.1) specifically relates to "the Execution of his Office", not to becoming president. One president, in an era where it was not feared that a war could arise in a matter of minutes, preferred not to take the oath on a Sunday, so he just waited until Monday.)
But the US has a long history of interpreting their constitution in ways other than reading what it literally says, which means that we won't ever know for sure unless this situation actually happens and any resulting legal cases have been settled. And of course we cannot give legal advice here, so if the original poster is Obama or McCain, he therefore had better ignore this thread altogether. --Anonymous, 22:30 UTC, edited 22:41, October 8, 2008.
That's very enlightening, Anon. If the termination of their service as a senator occurs automatically, why don't they just let that process take its course rather than actively resigning? Is it because they feel the need to put some distance between themselves and the Congress some time before they take on the president's job? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
One very good reason to resign: seniority. A new congressman / senator who takes office a day before another new legislator has seniority, and that often makes a difference in things like committee membership and leadership. DOR (HK) (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Last time I checked, President of the US wasn't a ceremonial position. They do far more than give speeches - they can veto the laws passed by congress, for a start. --Tango (talk) 21:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. It is also the President's job to take the blame for all the laws passed by Congress. Seriously, the President is not powerless. He is simply the least powerful of the three branches of government - as expressed in many Presidential memoirs. -- kainaw™ 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The recent goings on have reminded me that, while the President can veto laws he doesn't like, he cannot insist on laws he does want coming into force. -- JackofOz (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Which, amusingly enough, means that the vast majority of campaign speeches are essentially pointless- the federal government has no control over education, anyway, so that's out, the President can't directly influence laws, so any of his/her policies on the economy/oil/whatever are also out... pretty much the only thing the candidates are arguing on that they might actually be able to do something about is the Iraq war, because the President is commander-in-chief. --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 21:57, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(EC with above)The President is VERY powerful, if you consider that he has great leeway and control over appointments of the entire adminsitrative structure of the government, from the Justice department to State Department to the Joint Chiefs. He's essentially the CEO of the gigantic bureaucracy, and he has considerable power over how that bureaucracy operates. Congress may pass laws, but the executive puts them into action as it sees fit, and that is considerable power. The current administration even believes it has the power to ignore sections of laws it just doesn't like or to fire civil servants for not toeing the party line. Insofar as no other part of the government has made any attempt to curb this power, the President has it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
(response to Alinnisawest). Actually, the federal government has considerable power over just about any part of the nation that it wants to, via Power of the purse. Basically, our government already partially funds everything that the states do, from education to road construction, and while it cannot change laws of states, it can refuse to provide federal money to states that don't pass the laws that it wants. For all intents and purposes, that means that it can do whatever it wants with regard to passing laws. While its power may be theoretically limited via the Constitution, it can, for example, withhold federal money for highway construction if states refuse to abide by a national speedlimit (it actually did this in the 1970's) or it can refuse to provide federal money for schools that do not meet arbitrary testing standards (No Child Left Behind legislation under the current administration) even though BOTH of these provisions are techinically left entirely for the states to decide for themselves. States could defy the federal government, but it would be financial suicide to do so, as states need this federal funding to operate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I've heard it said (that most quoted of sources!) that the Federal strings cost more than the cash to which they're attached, but any State legislator who gets serious about declining the deal is leaned on hard by the national parties. —Tamfang (talk) 18:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I expect that circumstances might occur under which a candidate "wins" but does not become President. The electoral vote totals might not be certified, due to objections and obstructionism in the Joint Session of Congress where the votes are counted. One might say thet he is not "elected" until the January 6 Joint Session says he is, but the opinion of the public and historians might be that a majority of electoral votes where in fact cast for him, meaning that he was "elected" for all purposes except for the actions of Congress. There are scenarios where the Senate elects a Vice President but the House is deadlocked and does not elect a President. The Senator in question might choose to remain in his Senate seat if there was no prospect for the House electing him or the Joint Session confirming the actions of the Electoral College. Edison (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
I can't believe I just read that the executive branch is the least powerful. Just, wow. See Imperial Presidency, or alternatively, the last eight years. --Sean 23:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Right. Much of the federal government flows from the power of the executive (appointments, etc.—Michael D. Brown, anyone?), and the executive is in charge of nominating candidates to many aspects of the judicial branch (e.g. the Supreme Court). Congress has oversight over some of this but the power to nominate already balances things towards the executive. All of this ignores even more overt forms of power like Executive Orders. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The President can appoint people to various positions in government (ie: the Supreme Court), but Congress has to allow it. Unlike the Presidential veto, if Congress says "no", it is a solid "no." The President cannot override it. You will have cases where Congress opts to not decide - which is nothing more than a very passive aggressive way of deciding "yes." The President is also the Commander in Chief, but Congress holds the money. Could Bush have sent troops to Afghanistan and Iraq without cash? Of course not. Congress allowed the invasions by voting to pay for them. Again, Congress has the power to say "no" to the President and the President is powerless to override it. When it comes to Executive Orders, Congress can come in again and impeach the President (or just give him a big raspberry) if they don't like it. They can even pass a law to make the actions of the executive order illegal - putting a stop to it. The President can veto the law, but Congress can override the veto and have the last word. When it really comes down to it, Congress has the ability to say "no" to the President and the President has to work hard at weaselling a way to get what he wants. The President can veto Congress, but Congress can easily override the veto if they want to. What really bugs me about all of this is that even if you consider the balance of power to be 50/50 (which it is clear I do not), why do we spend 99.9999999% of the time debating the Presidential election and ignore the Congressional elections? We don't even have signs or commercials for my local Congressional elections. Most people I know don't even know who our Senators/Representatives are -- and they wonder how this state kept reelecting Thurmond until he petrified. -- kainaw™ 23:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
The fact is that the President can keep nominating people he or she wants until the end of time. Congress never get to nominate. That's a lot of power right there. Congress can say no. When it does so there is often a lot of controversy. It's harder for them to say no than it is to say yes, and the President still gets to pick the people they have to say yes or no to. I'd say the Executive still wields most of the power there, even if Congress does have some oversight. Ditto with power of the purse—yes, it's true that Congress has the power to not fund wars, but they do so at their own political peril (and even then Presidents have found ways to fund activities that Congress has explicitly prohibited them from doing—e.g. Iran-Contra).
As for Congressional elections.. it depends where you are. Some places are such strongholds for one party or the other than without some sort of major event or upheaval there's really no pressure to run a hard popular campaign. In some places they are heavily, heavily debated. And of course in some places there aren't even elections this term. In the case of South Carolina, the likelihood of a Democrat winning is so low as to make it not worth the time to campaign heavily, I'd imagine. The national party no doubt feels the efforts and resources in this regard should be concentrated on closer elections. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Because of the (ahem, ridiculous) seniority rules of the Senate, the earlier the respective governor appoints a replacement the more earmarks the state will get. Saintrain (talk) 00:22, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

If a president nominates an evil doofus for the Supreme Court, and the Senate refuses to confirm, as soon as the Senate recesses, the President could appoint him/her as a "recess appointment" and they would serve until the end of the next session of the Senate. G.W. Bush appointed by a recess appointments 2 federal judges, a U.N. ambassador, an ambassador to Belgium, a head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, and a Deputy Director of Social Security, who would likely not have been approved by the Senate. The Senate has recently prevented aditional recess appointments by Bush by having "pro forma" sessions every couple of days with a few Senators present, so the Senate never formally recesses. In the last year of the Continental Congress, there were similar pro forma sessions, for no obvious reason, where one or two members were present. Edison (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Chinese reform

Do we have an article for a PRC equivalent of Demokratizatsiya? GrszX 22:05, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a direct equivalent, but Gaige Kaifang (reform and opening up) is one of the primary policies of the new post-Mao China. The article says it's more like perestroika. A direct translation of demokratizatsiya is 民主主义化 minzhuzhuyihua, but it doesn't seem to be a common word. Steewi (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon

what type of people did napolean have in his army? (ex: cooks, tailors, blacksmiths etc) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.79.116.227 (talk) 23:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see our article on Napoleon's Grande Armée, which contains a lot of good information on these lines. I am not sure if its exactly what you are looking for, but there's lots of good info there. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 01:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If you mean what type of people by occupation, then we can almost say that the answer is "every type". The Emperor's famous comment Une armée marche à son estomac ("An army marches on its stomach") shows his attention to logistical planning. Strawless (talk) 22:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

October 9

date formats around the world

In the article Calendar date, there is a map (at right) showing which countries use small-endian DD-MM-YYYY style dates (blue), which big-endian YYYY-MM-DD (green), which Usonian MM-DD-YYYY (red), and which are mixed (aqua, purple, black). Unfortunately, a lot of the world is left blank, especially in Africa and the Mideast. If any of you are from a country that's been omitted, could you let us know your country's conventions on the image talk page? Thanks, kwami (talk) 03:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:OR? "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed". --Tagishsimon (talk) 08:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
If the user obtains references for the countries concerned then displaying this information in Image form would not be WP:OR. "This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy." -- Q Chris (talk) 08:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
We can discuss on the Talk page how to verify the claims, if the user doesn't provide a ref. Something interesting might turn up. kwami (talk) 08:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I think it is vital that if the image contains un-cited data then this is made clear. The whole image should be tagged "citation needed" and then details of which areas are unverified given later. If you have difficulty obtaining references for many countries then maybe you could use different shadings (e.g. pale variants of the colours) for unverified data. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The article lists the countries, though they might not all be there, or might not all have good refs. (I haven't worked on the article.) kwami (talk) 10:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, why is Canada the only country in black? Did we do something bad? Or *gasp* is the black hole to be created by the Large Hadron Collider going to immigrate here? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It's the only country that uses all three orders. kwami (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is? That's news to me (and the reference in Calendar date used to back up the claim is less than convincing). How do you define "use"? Clarityfiend (talk) 11:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It would seem very unlikely that they would use two mutually ambiguous date systems. -- Q Chris (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Actually, at work, the e-mail system uses dd/mm/yyyy, the computer clock uses mm/dd/yy, and the computer program with which we carry out our exciting tasks uses yyyy/mm/dd, so that's one example of all three being used in Canada. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
That must be confusing. If you see write the date on a cheque, or put your date of birth on a form would you usually put dd/mm/yyyy, or mm/dd/yyyy or yyyy/mm/dd? -- Q Chris (talk) 14:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I write "October 9, 2008" :) Adam Bishop (talk) 18:13, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I confirm that all three styles are used in Canada. I probably see little-endian most often, followed by "US style", and big-endian least often. Printed forms usually ask for a specific format; if they don't, you can do as Adam says; and if you don't, you risk being misunderstood, that's all. --Anonymous, 2008-10-09, 18:45 UTC.

The map is certainly misleading, as the DD-MM-YYYY style is used extensively in the US; the Wikipedia article on calendar date is absolutely false on this matter. The Papers of Thomas Jefferson published in 1950, for example, tell us that the Declaration of Independence was adopted on 4 July 1776. I doubt if any American readers have ever been confused by that format, or even found it particularly unusual, as it is seen so often. I suspect that the idea that there is a single "US style" date format is a Wikipedia invention. —Kevin Myers 06:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Except that that is dd MMMM yyyy. dd/mm/yy would be 04/07/1776 which I imagine many people in the US would find confusing. -- Q Chris (talk) 07:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
We're talking about number-only formats. If you write 04-07-1776 in the US, it will be almost universally read as April 7, not July 4. kwami (talk) 07:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hummanities homework!!

Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:Nepal Mongolia South sea Islands Egypt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittymaree (talk • contribs) 08:02, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Gosh that's real power, Lets see, for starters I'd like to locate the South Sea Islands just a short hop away, now that would be really nice. I would much prefer to keep their major ecosystems with them though. ;-) Dmcq (talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
ps we're not supposed to answer homework questions on the refdesk, see 'Before you ask a question' at the top for some tips for answering questions yourself. Dmcq (talk) 08:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Homework's getting easier: "Locate the following places on the world physical map and not the mojor eccosystem associated with each one:". We would have had to name the major ecosystems too. -- Q Chris (talk) 08:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Mojor ecosystem? Is that you, Dr. Evil? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, not ecosystem; eccosystem. And that's just confusing. --LarryMac | Talk 12:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps ask your English teacher for some extra homework?--Combatir (talk) 13:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

A good bit of general advice for doing homework: Pay attention in class for a few days before it's set. You'll find the teacher generally tells you how to do the homework prior to setting it. --Tango (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This question should be moved to the Hummanities desk. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps the WP:Reference Desk/Homework... hmm, now why does that show up as a red link, again? --Alinnisawest,Dalek Empress (extermination requests here) 18:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles Nepal , Mongolia , South Sea Islands , and Egypt which have the information you seek. Edison (talk) 18:53, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

<removed. Please don't provide false information. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 00:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)> --98.217.8.46 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the damn website!

Has anyone here read Thomas Friedman's new book, "Hot, Flat, and Crowded"? Somewhere, early on in the book, he references a website about the origin or history of ideas. I know he does because I own the book, I read it, and I made a mental note to check it out sometime. Well, now I can't find. I skimmed the first half of the book, I searched the book on Amazon, I searched the web for the site. Nothing. Nada. Short of re-reading the book until I bump in to it again, I'm out of ideas. Does anyone have any clue? Pyro19 (talk) 17:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Does History of ideas help? ៛ Bielle (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
No, it definitely wasn't Wikipedia nor was it the external link provided there. Pyro19 (talk) 17:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I found it. It's ideafinder.org. I searched the book on amazon for the term "according". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyro19 (talk • contribs) 23:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Canterbury Tales

What were some examples of Chaucer's moral judgement of his characters in Canterbury Tales? Thanks, Reywas92Talk 21:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

According to a member of Monty Python, he didn't like the knight... AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The best place to start would be reading the book. Then pay attention in class while discussing the book. Then sit and mull it over for a bit. Then you can do your homework. Good luck! --Tango (talk) 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
It is rather a long time since I read any of The Canterbury Tales, and I did not read them all, but what I remember is that on the whole Chaucer, in his narrative, side-steps what we usually mean by moral judgements. For instance, he presents the Monk mostly from the Monk's own point of view. However, I have just taken a look at the General Prologue, and at least one passage there has caught my eye in which Chaucer praises the moral character of one of his characters: "A Knight ther was, and that a worthy man, / That fro the time that he first bigan / To riden out, he loved chivalrye, / Trouthe and honour, freedom and curteisye..." Strawless (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as AnonMoos points out, it's possible to read Chaucer's praising of the knight as heavily ironic. Algebraist 08:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Why Asian Women & White men?

Why do many Asian American women like to date and marry white men, but not with black men and brown men? Black men and brown men are sexy and "big", but why many asian american women don't date/marry them? 208.124.207.122 (talk) 22:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask them. This is a reference desk. I seriously doubt anyone will find a respectable study on this topic. However, if someone does, they will surely give you a link to the reference. If you are simply attempting to get a discussion going, keep in mind that this is a reference desk, not a discussion forum. There are thousands of discussion forums available on the Internet that you can use. -- kainaw™ 22:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if someone has done a study on this subject - people do all kinds of studies on what different people find attractive. --Tango (talk) 22:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
There are some references in the article on interracial marriages which may be interesting. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 23:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious? White men in general have the most prestige in western society. Films, books, magazines, and newspapers reinforce this notion constantly. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

October 10

Austrapolithecus

where did they live? what did they look like? what they dicovered of invented? when did they live? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Luseta (talk • contribs) 00:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See Australopithecus. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:18, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Russia/Georgia conflict

I'm having a little trouble understanding this, despite having read a number of articles on the subject (both news articles and Wikipedia articles). From what I gather (and simply put), South Ossetia and Abkhazia wanted to separate from Georgia, because they are not ethnically Georgian. Georgia attacked them. Then Russia attacked Georgia for attacking them. Now, many other countries are angry with Russia for flexing its military muscle. Have I got all this right, and if so, why are they angry with Russia when it seems that Georgia was the original aggressor? (Not to imply that it's okay for Russia to go around bombing other countries that did something wrong first - two wrongs don't make a right - but why do they seem to be getting the majority of the blame?) Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 03:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Just to make it clear: I'm not trying to start a debate with the "why" part of the question, just asking for clarification since I don't quite understand what's going on. Cherry Red Toenails (talk) 05:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Picture this analogy then. States that are integral part of the U.S., like lets say North Dakota and Vermont, decide to secede from the union. The governments there organize armed forces, and declare that the U.S. is no longer sovereign over them, and that they are independent. Now, picture the U.S. Army marches in to stop this from happening. Now, here's the kicker, Canada then invades the U.S., and begins to place a seige on cities like Chicago, New York, and begins to push in on Washington D.C. Now, replace the words "U.S." with "Georgia", replace "North Dakota" and "Vermont" with "South Ossetia" and "Abkhazia" and the word "Canada" with "Russia" and that is the essense of the conflict. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It's more complicated than either, and it isn't about Georgia. It's about NATO. Imagine that it was the US economy that collapsed at the end of the Cold War, and a victorious USSR extended the Warsaw Pact to Cuba and Mexico, reassuring everyone that the US would "get used to it". I don't think they would. For some odd reason, Russia is not reconciled to the expansion of NATO either. The invasion of South Ossetia had basically the same motivation as the USSR had in provoking the Cuban missile crisis: That wasn't about Cuba, but a way to force NATO to pull its missiles in Turkey off the Soviet border. (Which they did, BTW.) All the stuff about "Russian citizens" in SO is BS; it's just the diplomatic excuse for Russia's challenge to NATO. Georgia may have instigated the actual battle, which gave the Russians the excuse they were looking for, but they were not the original aggressor. They insisted at independence that all territories of the Georgian SSR become part of independent Georgia, and SO and Abkhazia refused to go along. They rebelled, and in the case of Abkhazia engaged in genocide (excuse me, I think we use the more polite term "ethnic cleansing" now) to establish a population plurality—the Abkhaz were only 15% of the population, after all. There are hundreds of thousands of Mingrelian refugees from Abkhazia in Georgia. If the US had been smart, 5-10 years ago they would have tried to get Abkhazia to cede its eastern (non-Abkhaz) territories to Georgia in exchange for recognition, and Georgia to recognize their independence in exchange for a place to return many of the refugees. But bluster and bellowing is easier than actually solving anything. Anyone want to bet that the US won't try doing anything about Karabagh until that blows up too? kwami (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Unusual, ribbony necktie thing

What is this kind of tie called? --Seans Potato Business 08:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Invalid URL.--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
"string tie" or "Colonel tie" seem to be the common names, at least in western/cowboy circles [5] [6] - not to be confused with a Bolo tie (also known as a Bootlace tie) or a skinny tie (as popular in the late 70s/early 80s). If you Google for those terms, you should see more info. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Creative Commons question

Is it possible to license a lower quality version of an image/song/film under a CC license and maintain full copyright on higher quality versions?--SquareOuroboros (talk) 11:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Collateral damage of fixing the financial system

What consequences will the actions - flooding the markets with liquidity - of many governments have? Hyperinflation? Another bubble? Mr.K. (talk) 11:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

President and VP boarding the same plane

Is there a rule that prohibits the President and VP of boarding the same plane?Mr.K. (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

According to this article in TIME, it's not a rule, but a decision by the president in the interests of security. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 11:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Late_Roman_army&oldid=244353045"