January 18

Either in total or by some way of counting that excludes minor things like those things that are only used to hold oil or coal and those small ships that only serviced vessels too deep to enter the harbor. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 00:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Second World War undoubtedly saw the largest number of warships in service for the British Royal Navy, since the Battle of the Atlantic required a huge number of small escort vessels. In 1939, the RN (then the world's largest navy) had 332 major warships in service but by 1945, had 885 [1]. This does not include anti-submarine escort and amphibious warfare vessels of which there were 45 in 1939 [2] and about 9,000 in 1945 according to History_of_the_Royal_Navy#Second_World_War. In comparison, the RN strength in 1918 was 1,354 warships including escorts and 3,737 including the Auxiliary Patrol Service (mainly armed fishing boats). By 1945, the RN was the second largest to the USN, which had 6,768 warships in commission in 1945 [3] compared to 380 in 1938 and 790 in 1941. [4] The USN figures don't seem to include landing craft, which probably are included in the 9,000 RN total. Alansplodge (talk) 01:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Japanese and German navies likely also reached their zenith, in terms of numbers of ships, during WW2. Maybe the French too, although after the creation of Vichy France there was the question of which ships still counted as "French". Not positive about the US. It's quite possible WW2 was the peak there too, but the cold war also required lots of ships. The Soviet Union probably reached it's peak some time during the cold war. China may be at it's peak right now. StuRat (talk) 03:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The USN stats linked above give a Cold War peak of 932 warships in 1969 compared to 6,768 in 1945. Alansplodge (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By number of vessels I find this very unlikely. People's Liberation Army Navy lists 485 ships (excluding auxiliaries). During the Yuan dynasty, Kublai Khan apparently sent a fleet of 4400 ships against Japan, just to lose most of them to the Battle of Kōan and the kamikaze . --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme caution is required with numbers quoted in traditional Japanese accounts of battles. Exaggeration was the essence of good story telling for the authors of these texts and resulted in infinitely improbable numbers of enemies. Alansplodge (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in general (and not just for Japan - Xerxes most probably did not bring 5 million people to invade Greece at a time when the whole world population was estimated to be 100 million) . But in this case, our article cites a fairly recent Oxford University Press book, and I think the root sources are Chinese. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If that is anything like being accurate, it bears comparison with the Normandy landings; 142,000 troops and 4,400 ships in 1281, compared to 132,000 troops and 5,726 transports and landing craft in 1944. Alansplodge (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is any of that based on archeaological evidence, or just written accounts ? I find 4400 "ships" rather unbelievable for the time. Maybe if they included rowboats used to move people from a much smaller number of ships to the shore, we might get to a total of 4400. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Prior to the Apollo 11 moon landing (I think), there was a news article containing some speculation over what the first words spoken by man on the moon would (or ought) to be. Some writer (Isaac Asimov, perhaps?) suggested something like "Goddard, we've arrived", whereas some comedian (Bob Hope?) recommended "By golly, it's made of cheese!" (or something similar). Where can I find the exact suggestions? Gabbe (talk) 11:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you can find them, but that "Goddard" quote sounds more like it would have been suggested by Arthur C. Clarke than Asimov. Grutness...wha? 13:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This article says: "It would, of course, have been very difficult for him not to have pondered his first words in advance -- Andrew Chaikin, in "A Man on the Moon," writes that he was pelted with suggestions, including lines from the Bible and Shakespeare. Esquire magazine, even before the Apollo 11 crew had been announced, ran a sneering cover: "What Words Should the First Man on the Moon Utter that Will Ring Through the Ages?" (Its first suggestion: "Er ... ah ... well, let's see now.")" - maybe that's what you were looking for? Grutness...wha? 13:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this link, it indeed seems to be the July 1969 issue of Esquire I was thinking about. Thanks! Gabbe (talk) 17:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you were right and I was wrong - it was Asimov :) Grutness...wha? 04:40, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The story behind Pete Conrad's first words on the moon when he stepped off Apollo 12 is also fun. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A query that I can't seem to find an answer to... Until 1975, what is now the Indian State of Sikkim was a (semi-)independent kingdom, a protectorate firstly of Britain and then of India. Was there ever a suggestion, prior to its annexation by India, that it should become a member of the Commonwealth of Nations? Other protectorates (such as Tonga and Swaziland) were accepted as members of the Commonwealth; it would seem strange if there was no suggestion that Sikkim do likewise, though I have found no suggestion that it ever happened. Thanks in advance - Grutness...wha? 13:07, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New and future States of the British Commonwealth by Victor Bulmer-Thomas (1974), of which only the first page is viewable without a JSTOR account, suggests that it was on the cards before the 1975 referendum. Bulmer-Thomas's comment that "India virtually annexed the Himalayan kingdom of Sikkim" suggests that India's assumption of the protectorate in 1950 was done without the consent of the British Government and therefore an earlier entry into the Commonwealth (still the British Commonwealth in those days) might have been problematic. Alansplodge (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

More backgound about the Indo-Sikkim Treaty, 1950 is at Treaties: Annexation of Sikkim. Alansplodge (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Grutness...wha? 04:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen somewhere that when someone saw Jesus and asked him Quo vadis, domine? ("Where are you going to, my lord?") he answered Romam vado iterum crucifigi. ("I am going to Rome to get crucified again.") But where does this text actually appear? I haven't actually read the Bible, only briefly skimmed through it. Is it true in the first place? And why on Earth would Jesus, or anyone, after surviving crucifixion or being resurrected after it, possibly want to get crucified again? JIP | Talk 21:33, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article Quo vadis? has a reference to the apocryphal Acts of Peter, so it would not turn up in the New Testament proper. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The article on the Acts of Peter in the de:WP is somewhat longer than the en version. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus is mocking Peter for running away. What's the matter, too good for crucifixion? Jesus did it once, and he's so badass he'll do it again. Is that too much to ask of Peter? Peter is also notable in the Bible for (at least initially) wavering in his convictions, as Jesus predicted that he would deny knowing him three times before the rooster crowed in the morning. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]