Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2020 December 22

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 22

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta convert to Islam but not the rest of India?

Why did the Indus Valley and Ganges Delta (and to a lesser extent, territories on the Ganges further north) convert to Islam but not the rest of India, which remained either Hindu or later became Sikh (or, rarely, some other religion such as Jain or Christian)? Futurist110 (talk) 00:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Indus Valley is closest by land and has a Khyber Pass. Not surprising. What's counterintuitive is why did they have such a strange pattern east of that area and south of the mountain barrier. China not having a high Muslim percentage if north southeast Asia doesn't isn't surprising but Indonesia is densely populated and far and was just as reincarnationist as them and became Muslim but not Lanka but yes most Indian Ocean islands good ships but not Philippines but yes Mindanao but not all of it I think but yes Ganges Delta but not Southeast Asian deltas. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Futurist110 -- the short answer is that Sindh was conquered by the Arab caliphate rather early (711 A.D.), while the area of Bangladesh had a large number of "tribals" until later than many other areas. Traditionally, tribals were assimilated to Hindu civilization by entering the caste structure near the bottom, and converting to Islam may have seemed like an attractive alternative. There were other "tribal" areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea... AnonMoos (talk) 04:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

P.S. William H. McNeill expresses it this way: "Islam also won numerous converts in Bengal, where primitive peoples in the process of entering into the Hindu cultural world frequently preferred the religion of Mohammed to a Hindu system which placed them near the bottom of the caste hierarchy." -- AnonMoos (talk) 04:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

And there weren't very many tribal peoples in central India? Also, what about the Muslim minority around the Ganges in northern India? For instance, in the United Provinces? Futurist110 (talk) 05:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote above? -- "There were other 'tribal' areas, but they were usually far inland, while East Bengal was more conveniently accessible by sea." I could have added that many of the other areas were remote and hilly, while East Bengal was flat and threaded by numerous navigable river branches. Of course that's only an approximate impressionistic first-order explanation. I know very little about the other area you referred to, but it sounds like it would have been in the heart of the Mogul empire... AnonMoos (talk) 10:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Did India's high population (higher tech than Europe right?) have anything to do with getting to part of India so quick then historical maps that look like trying to bite off more than you can chew? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, what? Your idiosyncratic use of idiom here makes it hard to parse what you are trying to ask about. Can you clarify? --Jayron32 11:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Mughal Empire at maximum extent

In 622 AD the caliphate had only just gained the territory of Makkah, Arabia and the boundary was close to it while only 89 years later the boundary was in what we moderns would call Pakistan. Then it took about a thousand years for the border to reach maximum extension in India even though ending strong conversation pressure couldn't have helped the side that's attempting a reconquest, stop or slowdown. I guess there might've also been goal-line stand-type effects at the end as Indians who didn't want to be under the Mughal Empire concentrated in the southern tip and had less miles of front to defend and fought harder. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Look, there's a LOT of misconceptions you have about India and its history, not to mention the fact that your insistence on "doubling down" on peculiar idioms and mixed metaphors leads me to believe that you're just fucking with me unnecessarily, especially since I asked you to ask your questions clearly. But whatever. If you want to learn more about the history of Islam in India, you'll read that article, follow links as they interest you, and become the autodidact we've all been rooting for you to become. If you're not, you'll keep doing what you always do. --Jayron32 17:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

You're right I shouldn't have hypothesized from what little I remembered from my history book in high school and what's on this thread. I know so little about Indian history that I shouldn't be talking. I was not implying that the caliph had secular power in India after whatever year it was when other empire(s) or sultanate(s) or state(s) took over. I had thought that you as a person with some knowledge of American football would've known what a goal line stand was but okay I shouldn't have used that idiom. Presumably Indians who didn't care which state they were in would stay where they were and the little bit at the bottom had at least one soldier from the Mughal part during times of war but I have no idea if mentioning them was undue weight. I shall go read the article and find out what really happened. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

• See Mughal Empire. The first areas the Mughals conquered were in the Indus and Ganges plains. The first few Emperors were fervent Muslims, and really tried to push their subjects into mass conversion to Islam (with some success). This explains why there are more Muslims in those areas. Later Emperors, however, were more open minded when it came to the religion of their subjects... so, as the empire expanded to the south, fewer people felt pressured to convert. Hence more Hindus and Buddhists in central and southern areas. Blueboar (talk) 15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Naval tactics

HMS Victory (centre) breaks the French line at Trafalgar; Bucentaure is on the right with her stern against Victory's port broadside.

Are there historical examples when a warship, in order to avoid the enemy's broadside cannons or guns, aligned herself with that warship's stern or bow instead to shell in these directions? Did that tactics work? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Crossing the T has nothing to do with penmanship. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

In general, "raking" an opponent, i.e. firing along the length of the enemy's ship, was deemed a highly desirable situation in the age of sail, not only because of being largely out of range of the enemies guns, but also because ships at that time were relatively open, and a lot of heavy metal flying down at high speed through the crews and guns of the gun deck was considered an efficient way to reduce the combat capabilities of the target. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Most famously, at the Battle of Trafalgar when HMS Victory raked the French ship Bucentaure through the vulnerable stern windows, killing nearly 200 of her crew. The most effective weapon for this was the short-range carronade; Victory's carronades were "double shotted" with a huge 68-lb round shot and a keg of 500 musket balls. See also Sailing ship tactics. Alansplodge (talk) 15:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the poundage of max effectiveness for round shot size muzzle-loaded by hand? Is it higher in a fort where cannon weight isn't a consideration? (if you still had to lift the cannonballs with human muscles without pulleys etc) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Carronades had a very short barrel and fired a shot at low velocity, designed for fighting at close quarters; major warships generally carried only two carronades, while they mounted 100 or more "long" guns. 68 lb was the largest shot in the British fleet in the age of sail. That equals 30 kg which even a skinny bloke like me can lift in the gym. The victory's long guns were 12, 24 and 36 lbs. With the introduction of rifled artillery in the 1850s, shells began to be too heavy to lift manually, so they were hoisted by a chains running through a block and tackle, which were then swung into position at the breech of the gun by means of an overhead rail like this. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well they might not have reached the limit of handloading yet (especially with how many other things had to be done to reload) but couldn't continue forever and it couldn't have been far off if rifling the barrels for long shells made the ammo too heavy. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sorry to nitpick, but while Victory carried different armaments through its lifetime, I don't think she ever carried 36pounders, which were not widely used in the RN at that time. At least at Trafalgar, Victory was armed with 32pounders on the lower gun deck (42pounders had fallen out of favour, because the extra weight was bad for rate of fire). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So they had reached a limit for full-length cannons. Every little bit like longer swabbing time and pushing it back time added up apparently. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the smallest ship that's an even match for the best stern firepower ever made if the smaller ship was perpendicular to the stern the whole time and neither ship had any of the Age of Sail-ending revolutions like adding steam engines, metal armor, rifling and breeches? What about bows? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Sailing warships rarely had more than two light guns positioned in the stern, called stern chasers, so it was a major faux pas to present your ship's stern to an enemy broadside. Not really sure if your question can be quantified, but for the smallest vessels employed with any success against major warships, see Gunboat War. Alansplodge (talk) 22:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

So something that can only shoot 2 light guns at the same direction (which would be a damn small warship) would have equal firepower (if they could stay behind) but is much easier to sink but might have an easier target to aim at and officers' stuff is in the back so who knows. Maybe if there's no wind and the current lets them sneak up at night they could get lucky? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes in theory, but a lot of luck required. I can't find an instance where this actually happened. Alansplodge (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Quotation - "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall"

At Bristol Basin in New York City is a plaque erected by the English Speaking Union of the United States commemorating the use of rubble from the Bristol Blitz in building the area. The plaque includes what looks like a quotation "And broad-based under all is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, as rich in fortitude as e'er went worldward from the island wall." I wuld be interested to know the source, thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

According to the comment after this blog post the poet was Stephen Vincent Benét. Fascinating story. Thincat (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Maybe, but that particular segment was lifted from an interminably lengthy poem called National Ode by Bayard Taylor, the nation in question being the United States;

"She takes, but to give again, / As the sea returns the rivers in rain; / And gathers the chosen of her seed / From the hunted of every crown and creed. / Her Germany dwells by a gentler Rhine; / Her Ireland sees the old sunburst shine; / Her France pursues some dream divine; / Her Norway keeps his mountain pine; / Her Italy waits by the western brine; / And, broad-based under all, / Is planted England's oaken-hearted mood, / As rich in fortitude / As e'er went worldward from the island-wall! / Fused in her candid light, / To one strong race all races here unite..." (and so on and on and on).

It was recited by the poet at the Centennial International Exhibition of 1876, where it was allegedly "listened to with close attention". [1] See also Heart of Oak. Alansplodge (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Thincat: and @Alansplodge:. I think Benet must have written the "it was not their wall but their valour" bit before the text I quoted. DuncanHill (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I now think Alan's is the correct answer. When I saw him quoting "close attention" I thought I detected a note of scepticism. However, it looks as if a vast crowd really were overcome by the magnificence of the occasion as Taylor orated his ode.[2] Thincat (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that link Thincat; I'm afraid I was being over censorious, perhaps the popular taste in poetry at that time differed more than I imagined. I had thought it rivalled the work of William McGonagall, but I'm not seeking employment as a literary critic. Alansplodge (talk) 13:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Perhaps they'd had a rather good lunch. I find McGonagall easier to get through than Taylor. DuncanHill (talk) 13:42, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

I have added the Ode details to Bayard's article. Alansplodge (talk) 16:07, 29 December 2020 (UTC)