Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2018 August 2

= August 2 =

Latin name of Strathclyde
(Forgive my poor English.) What's the Latin name of Strathclyde? Being a historical kingdom, it should have one. I tried to do some research but I found absolutely nothing. Maybe it's me that don't know where to look, not being an expert on the subject. Thanks to anyone who can help me. --Giulio Mainardi (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem to exist a related known Latin name dating from the Roman occupation, see http://www.clydewaterfront.com/clyde-heritage/dumbarton/dumbarton-rock-and-castle. The "clyde" in Strathclyde might have been written "Cluathe" in the 7th century Irish chronicles. A more Latin sounding wording may exist but I do not think it is probable. --Askedonty (talk) 10:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The Romans would not have had a name for the kingdom, as it did not exist during the Roman era. So the question can be narrowed: Once the kingdom did exist, are there documents written in medieval church Latin that mention it... and if so, what did they use? Blueboar (talk) 11:34, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The history of Strathclyde appears spotty at best, however, the Wikipedia articles Máel Coluim, King of Strathclyde, Owain Foel and Máel Coluim, son of the king of the Cumbrians use terms like "Rex Cumbrorum" (for the first two) and "Regis Cumbrorum" (see text of the third) which indicates that the Latin term may have been Cumbria, which is also the modern name for the region once occupied by Strathclyde. Those titles born by those kings refer to Popular monarchical titles (literally "King of the Cumbrians").  The word Cumbria is related to words like "Cymru" and "Cymry", the endonym for the Welsh people; Strathclyde was a Welsh kingdom (basically, they actually used a closely related language called Cumbric).  -- Jayron 32 12:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, Cumbria was the preferred name in Medieval Latin documents, though it's not absolutely certain that Strathclyde and Cumbria are precisely the same thing – the shortage of evidence prevents you from saying anything about Strathclyde without some kind of qualifier. People did occasionally do their best to Latinize Old Welsh Ystrad Clut (Strathclyde), so for example Asser comes up with the demonym Stratcluttenses, and the Annals of St Neots have Strecledenses.  Clutenses is also found.  Sources:, . --Antiquary (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it's the old translation dilemma that has existed for history: whether one leans towards word-for-word translation or sense-for-sense translation; in this case whether the translator uses an existing Latin term (Cumbria) to translate a concept that didn't exist in Latin originally (Strathclyde) or whether one applies the rules of Latin morphology to the word "Strathclyde" to come up with a new Latin word. Then as now, there are people who do both.  -- Jayron 32 15:00, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot to everyone! --Giulio Mainardi (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Borders of the Republic of Texas
All over the place, when you see a map of the "less disputed" portion of the Republic of Texas, it always looks like these:   To wit: Starting from the mouth of the Nueces River, up that to a certain point, northeast to the San Antonio River, up that to a certain point, then NE, NW, and NE again, until it reaches the US border. There are sometimes exceptions but these seem to be most maps.

So... where is this described in any official fashion? Googling around with various combinations of "Texas" "Border" "Nueces" "San Antonio River" gets me nothing. Is this a chain letter with no beginning? I'd love to have some concrete reasoning for these lines, if not concrete definitions, to add to Territorial evolution of the United States. (also xposted to the Republic's talk page) --Golbez (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to the borders with the Mexican states of Coahuila, Chihuahua and Nuevo Mexico ? ( see Detailed map) Obviously Mexico would have wanted those states with a near access to San Antonio. Or pretended it wanted it. The U.S. could not afford it. --Askedonty (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right, but where is this particular border documented? I see it mapped but I've not been able to find a text description of "and then at this point in the Nueces River it goes NE", etc. Like, I want documentation of why people map this, but so far, the answer seems to be "well all the other maps had it that way". --Golbez (talk) 23:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, looking at that map again, some of the lines seem to actually be defined, but on the other hand, that map isn't the one that most of the Internet uses, as can be seen by my links above. --Golbez (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The northern boundaries of the disputed area on your maps seem to be that which were recognized by the U.S. for the (then) spanish Texas at the 1819 Adams-Onís Treaty. --Askedonty (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the north and east borders are very clear, but the south and west are not. The best I can say is "Nueces River up to a point" but where and why that point is, I don't know, or any of the other points beyond that. --Golbez (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Following the line north to south, it's chains more or less Wichita Falls, Abilene, Brownwood, Junction. Looking at coloured maps, it might be that the logic is simply in topology. On General Austin's Map of Texas 1840 there features a river flowing down to north into the Sabine Red River along a path matching the boundary line in the same area. More to the south ( Woodbury & Co Grant ? ) a mountainous line there is a trail that could be a match to the other NE axis. --Askedonty (talk) 08:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I suspect it's some estimate about what area Texas controlled in practice rather than their grandiose claims that took big brother down the block to make good.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It depends on which big brother. "Santa Anna pledged to withdraw his troops south of the Rio Grande River" . --Askedonty (talk) 10:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh sure. With guns pointed at him, so to speak. Mexico obviously didn't recognize that, and made that plain with a number of military expeditions north of the Rio Grande. So again, it's zone of control.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:48, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

We seem to have discovered patient zero, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27784925?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents, which states "By a royal cedula of 1805, "the western boundary of Texas began at the mouth of the Rio Nueces, thence up that river to its junction with Moros creek, thence in a northeasterly direction to near the Garza crossing of the Medina river, thence up that river to its source, thence in a direct line to the source of the San Saba river, thence northwesterly to the intersection of the 103rd meridian of west longitude and the 32nd parallel of north latitude, thence northeasterly to the intersection of the Red River by the 100th meridian, thence down said river."" --Golbez (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not really sure why that is the difference between disputed and undisputed. Did the Mexican Government between 1830 and 1848 ever have different policies on the land on the two sides? Seems like simply a line indicating what everyone agreed was Texas, not whether they agreed on its situation.Naraht (talk) 18:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Technically, it was all disputed. But maps tend to draw the eastern quarter - east of the borders mentioned above - as being unambiguously Texas, with the rest as disputed with Mexico. I'm sure part of the confusion stems from the Treaties of Veracruz, which recognized Texas ... but were rejected by the Mexican government. So right now, on the article, it's all given the same status. But, a formal line of control is worth mentioning, so I wanted to include that. --Golbez (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2018 (UTC)