Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2019 June 10

= June 10 =

Decimal separators


According to this map, Egypt uses periods to indicate decimals (34.56), while other Arabic-speaking countries use the Arabic-specific Momayyez. No other Arabic-speaking countries use the period; the formerly French countries of the Mughreb use commas (34,56) and others are data-deficient, but why is Egypt different? It was a British protectorate for a long time, but so were the Trucial States and Mandatory Iraq, as well as Muscat and Oman, and the data-deficient Sudan and Jordan. Nyttend (talk) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Can't find a reference, but one suspects that it has to do with the other former-British territories that you mention having been integral parts of the Ottoman Empire until 1917 or 1918, which used Arabic notation at that time. Although Egypt was nominally part of the Ottoman Empire until 1914, it was fully autonomous from it, and our History of Egypt under the British article notes that "European and foreign finances took control of the treasury of Egypt" well before the establishment of the veiled protectorate (1882–1913). I also suspect that Sudan follows Egyptian notation; our article on the Sudanese pound states that the currency there was the Egyptian pound until 1956 when the Anglo-Egyptian condominium ended. Alansplodge (talk) 18:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Renaissance warfare
Suppose a unit of Landsknechts on foot and armed with broadswords (let's assume 50 of them, for the sake of the argument) is attacked by an equal force of cuirassiers on horseback who are also armed with swords. If both sides are equally well-trained and experienced, and both fight optimally, which side should win? Does this change if the cuirassiers are armed with sabers instead of swords (but the Landsknechts keep the same broadswords as before)? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 01:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Please specify the terrain. Horsemen can ride down infantry more easily on an open prairie, while the infantry would have a big advantage on a rocky wooded hillside.  Nyttend (talk) 01:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Level ground, with a mixture of open fields and woodland. 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The classic defence against cavalry is the infantry square, but as that article notes, a square typically relies on a larger force, maybe 500-1000 men. I'm not sure that a 50-man square might have the same benefits, especially if they're armed with shorter and heavier weapons like swords instead of lighter and longer pikes.  Conversely, a large body of horsemen has a bigger effect because of the weight of numbers: shoot down one horseman and there are more lines behind him, while fifty might not have the same effect.  (It's vaguely like the square-cube law — if such a military formation is doubled in size, its effectiveness is likely to grow more than double, since you can do more with a larger body of massed men.)  Nyttend (talk) 02:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * So the answer depends on the size of the units, even with the assumption that they are both equal in size? (BTW, the real reason I chose 50 to be the numbers on each side is because based on the Landsknecht TOE, it would be highly unlikely that there would be a unit of more than 50 of them all armed only with swords, without any muskets and/or pikes.) 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What is "TOE"? To give you an extreme example, imagine a one-on-one engagement: the horseman probably has a big advantage.  Now take a two-on-two: again, a big advantage.  Now a four-on-four, and the infantry try to form a miniscule square: there's hardly a difference between their square and any other formation.  Now 500-on-500: the infantry can form a robust square that's pretty much impenetrable to your cavalry.  How the two would balance in a 50-on-50 setting is probably somewhere in the middle.  Nyttend (talk) 10:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info! And TOE = Table of organization and equipment (every military person knows this :-) ). 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * For the United States Army, it's a big TOE; for the military of Monaco, a little one. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Point of accuracy: a Zweihander is not re same as a broadsword. Iapetus (talk) 09:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Our Landsknecht article states that they consisted "predominantly of German mercenary pikemen and supporting foot soldiers", so it seems that a mix of weapons would have been much more likely. Our article on the Spanish Tercio formations which were widely imitated across Europe, gives some idea of battlefield tactics in the 16th century.
 * In later warfare, commanders tried to avoid sending cavalry against infantry in formation, preferring to wait until they were broken up by artillery fire or were in retreat. The disastrous French heavy cavalry attacks on the Allied line at Waterloo were prompted by the impression that the British were retiring, when actually they were just sending their walking wounded to the rear. Why Marshal Ney persisted in these attacks and destroyed his heavy cavalry corps in the process is something of a mystery. My opinion (for what it's worth) is that if 50 infantry can hold their nerve and keep formation (some kind of schiltron would do the trick) then the fact that you can't make a horse ride onto a wall of pikes, swords or bayonets would be greatly in their favour. United they stand, divided they literally fall. Alansplodge (talk) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! So, as long as the Landsknechts stay in close formation, they have the advantage? 2601:646:8A00:A0B3:C5E:C820:3A44:3500 (talk) 00:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
 * "The answer is that cavalry really isn't all that effective against disciplined infantry, emphasis on disciplined. Generally. what we see when we look at ancient and medieval battles is that commanders who order cavalry charges into infantry formations who hold together and are bracing for the charge lose horribly. You use cavalry to flank, in "hammer-and-anvil" tactics (where your infantry forms the "anvil" against which the enemy force is pinned while your cavalry "hammers" the enemy repeatedly until they break). Cavalry is also used to follow up on a successful battle and pursue routing enemies. But successful commanders do not order direct charges into prepared enemy infantry formations".  Alansplodge (talk) 08:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

this is why 69 is tagged in roblox
hello as i cant anwser this on wikia (Since its not part of wikipedia as it says here: WP:Wikipedia is not Wikia also  this si for pepoel who do not know why 69 is tagged in roblox, to see why see the words in red circles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobloxFanEditor (talk • contribs) 07:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Presumably you're talking about Roblox, which is a game of some kind. What do you mean by "tagged"? Is something preventing you from entering that number? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I would assume that number is censored in the chat window (or perhaps player names) due to the sexual meaning. Those type of automated censors are notoriously bad at censoring things they shouldn't and missing things they should. Some games have the option to turn the filter on or off; perhaps Roblox does, too. SinisterLefty (talk) 09:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 5th
Question moved to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

One Dollar Bills and the USA Motto
Wikipedia (and Publishers Clearing House who references wikipedia) states that the 1957 One Dollar Silver Certificate was the first paper money that had "In God We Trust" on the reverse. In fact, the 1935g and 1935h also have the motto on the reverse, predating the 1957 bill and Congress' bill making "In God We Trust" officially USA's Motto by 22 years. I have a 1935 one dollar silver certificate and I verified this fact through Hawaiian Islands Stamps and Coins.72.235.11.122 (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Feel free to find an appropriate reference and fix it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 1935G were issued about 1961 to 63 while 1935H were issued in 1963 - both after the 1957 change. See the names of the Treasury and Secretary of the Treasury as shown on our list: Silver_certificate_(United_States) For instance, Smith and Dillon are on both 1937G and 1957A. Rmhermen (talk) 02:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)