May 24

In a couple of Michael Moorcock's semi-realistic novels (e.g.), one milieu is the fictitious city of 'Mirenburg' in the fictitious Germanic state of 'Waldenstein' (the latter not intended to be one of the real places of that name).

I would have assumed that the city's name was merely a plausible invention by Moorcock, but a search on "pages containing" reveals a couple of real people with the family name Mirenburg, which has the appearance of a Toponymic surname.

Does anyone have evidence that this name was ever that of a real place (presumably in a sometime-German speaking part of Europe), or if there was a placename in another language that might have been rendered into German as "Mirenburg"? If not, what is its origin as a surname? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.209.235.54 (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Merenberg in Hesse, Germany. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:03, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The surname is found as Миренбург in Russia^[1] (and for the co-owner of a sawmill in 1919 in Belarus as Мірэнбург.^[2]). The Russian site suggests it is an alteration of "Merenburg", said to be a community of the Hesse district of Limburg-Weilburg. This refers presumably to the same community as Merenberg, so this toponymical theory requires two vowel alterations. The surname "Merenburg" is also found, in particular in the Netherlands.^[3] This is also the name of a former country house near Amsterdam,^[4] but a country house is not a likely toponymical origin for a surname.  --Lambiam 09:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also an ancient family name "von Mehrenburg".^[5]  --Lambiam 09:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also of note is that there is a problem with the distinction between -berg (hill) and -burg (fortification) which, while sounding different in German, often get confused in other languages due to the often fluid nature of vowels and especially in English, where most dialects would make those two sound identical. Which is to say that just because some doubly transliterated term has been taken from the Latin alphabet, into the Cyrillic alphabet, and back into the Latin alphabet; we should be saying that two words don't refer to the same place because the vowels are not exactly identical. SOme allowances should be made for those sorts of things. --Jayron32 16:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In Russian, though, we find clearly distinct vowels, /burk/ versus /bʲɪrk/.  --Lambiam 19:51, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak nor read Russian, but I do know that orthography is always a complicating factor when considering linguistics. --Jayron32 12:43, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question as topic. Talking about multiple warship on warship combat, specifically. Which was the last one (so far)?

Was it during the Falklands War? Though I don't think that was a particular large one, compared to the past - and it was mostly ships being attacked via planes and missiles anyway. --146.200.128.101 (talk) 02:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search sugggests the Battle of Leyte Gulf, but doubtless there are other contenders depending on how you define navel battle. Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Surigao Strait (a sub-battle of Leyte Gulf) was apparently the last "classic" ca. 1900 style battleship duel, without airplanes significantly involved... AnonMoos (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See List of naval battles. Depends on how you define major. Destroyers and larger ships? Missile boats? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:13, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A fleet engagement in the Falklands War was avoided by the sinking of ARA General Belgrano by a British submarine, wherepon the Argentinian fleet retired to port. Prior to that, there was the sinking of the Indian frigate INS Khukri by a Pakistani submarine in 1971, the Israeli frigate INS Eilat by missile boats in 1967 and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964 when USS Maddox was sunk by Vietnamese motor torpedo boats, none of which can really be called "fleet engagements". Alansplodge (talk) 11:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Maddox was not "sunk" - see USS Maddox (DD-731)#Gulf of Tonkin incident. MarnetteD|Talk 22:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I stand corrected. The damage amounted to a single bullet hole. Alansplodge (talk) 22:28, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the Roman Empire become "socialist" after the end of the Republic, which eventually led to its fall? For example, one could argue that it became a "welfare state" in a sense, becoming weaker and weaker with limited incentives, limited business innovation, the citizens became dependent on the government, etc. I've read things like Augustus giving monetary handouts to Roman children coming-of-age, the state controlling entire industries such as brick-making, etc. These seem like socialist practices, would I be wrong? I'm confused about the economy as well. It was largely agricultural, I know, but what percentage of the output came from free citizens, versus slaves/via state controlled means? Deedman22 (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly the Roman city mob got the handouts. If you were a peasant outside Italy, then you were much more likely to face an extreme tax burden, rather than receive any handouts. Over time, the Roman Empire evolved in a direction similar to feudalism, rather than anything that could be called "socialism". AnonMoos (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been debates by historians, engineers etc. about the Roman Empire's overall curious lack of technological inventiveness, compared to some other periods of European/Mediterranean history. One factor is that the use of slave labor discouraged the invention of labor-saving gadgets, but that's probably not the only factor. AnonMoos (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... 16 Historical Roman Inventions That Helped Shape the Modern World. Alansplodge (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's conspicuous that all of the "inventions" on that list are administrative/architectural/military, not one of them is a labor-saving gadget, while some of them are of very dubious value (e.g. Roman numerals), some of them are very dubiously "Roman" (such as the Julian calendar, which was based on the knowledge of the Egyptian astronomer Sosigenes), and some of them were luxury toys for elites which were abandoned after the decline of the Roman Empire, and so did not survive as a basis for further technical advancements (e.g. hypocausts). AnonMoos (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. It's also a little odd that the "codex" manuscript form (as opposed to traditional scrolls) was used far more by despised and persecuted Christians than by the ruling/elite classes of the pagan era of the Roman Empire ("principate"). AnonMoos (talk) 01:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A monarchy giving alms to the poor or maintaining control of certain industries isn't socialism. (Of course, the Roman Empire wasn't a monarchy, no siree. You can tell, because the guy at the top was calling himself "Commander" (Imperator) rather than "King" (Rex). Which is totally different). Iapetus (talk) 09:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many causes have been proposed for the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire, but socialism is not one of them. The practices of early Christian communities have been described as a form of communism, and the spread of Christianity is on the list, but seeing Christian practices as a contributing factor is a long shot. (Additionally, I don't get why socialism is seen as weakening a society. The Northern European "welfare states" are faring well.) My money is on this proposed contributing factor, given in the section Fall of the Western Roman Empire § Military, financial, and political ineffectiveness: the process of failure: "Corruption, in this context the diversion of finance from the needs of the army, may have contributed greatly to the Fall."  --Lambiam 09:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Socialism is a economic theory developed and implemented specifically in response to the early-to-mid 19th century conditions that depended on the specific type of industrial economies that were happening in the West at that time. To say that anything prior to that was "socialist", explicitly, is anachronistic. Certainly, ideas that would later be incorporated into socialism, such as common ownership of the means and/or results of production, had existed in some form since time immemorial, to say that some group or society or time period prior to the 19th century was "socialist" is just not correct. --Jayron32 12:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious why there seems to be two variants: one appearing in Crusaders of the Río Grande (Q112123057) and thence Kiva, Cross, and Crown (Q112123304) (and perhaps also Don Diego de Vargas Zapata Luján Ponce de León, El Marques de la Nava de Barcinas (Q96631042)) which is significantly different from that in portrait of Diego de Vargas (copy) (Q96639516). Did his arms change over his lifetime, or did one of the sources get it wrong?

I made a sloppy attempt at vectorisations of each in the hopes of more clearly comparing them, and they can be viewed here (or if that loads sluggishly for you, try these PNG links: painting & books/sculpture). Arlo James Barnes 23:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a cutout of the coat of arms from (a fuzzy image of) the painting. The image from Crusaders as it appears in Kiva, Cross, and Crown can be seen here. A sharper version appears side-by-side with an even fuzzier painting here.  --Lambiam 09:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arlo James Barnes, this article explains (page 310-315) that the painting was later copied with a different version of the coat of arms, and the two were described in the scholarly literature at different times, so yes there are two versions circulating in the sources. In fact, page 314 shows both your versions side by side. This article also explains the four elements (which appear in both versions, though in different order): the waves are for the Vargas family and represent a miracle of a spring. The boots are the Zapata Lujan family. What the walls represent is not known. The lion quarter is also obscure, but may be for the Ponce de Leon family. Spanish_heraldry explains how the Spanish coats of arms eventually came to represent ancestry but the "modern" format with the four grandparents in designated quarters was just coming in during Diego de Vargas's time so I think that's why the article couldn't say clearly which families were represented on this particular device.70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Arlo James Barnes 17:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]