Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Humanities desk
< August 1 << Jul | August | Sep >> August 3 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


August 2[edit]

An earth without humans[edit]

Some days ago I have seen a documentary film at a science TV channel that started to analyze what would happen with the world if for some X reason the human race wasn't around anymore. The main topics were descriptons of how would cities, buildings and most structures deteriorate over time by being left without maintenance, how would nature start to destroy and erase all such things, the few things that would last longer (such as dams, plastics or stainless steel), the fate of most great landmarks like the statue of liberty or the Eiffel Tower, etc. In just a few hundred years, hardly any trace of the human race would remain, except for some things like exploration vehicles that were left on the moon.

Question is, is there an article about this topic here in Wikipedia? I have no idea of wich name would it have, or in wich category it may be located MBelgrano (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This same question was asked some time ago... Maybe a year ago at most? I don't have the time right now but while you're waiting for an answer, you could try searching through the archives (though I don't know what specific terms you'd search for to limit the number of results). I think it was either on Science or Misc. that it was asked. Dismas|(talk) 05:01, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was Life After People. I thought it was rather melodramatic, but hey, it was made for TV after all. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so not the same question but the same documentary came up: Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2008_June_19#Last_surviving_human_artefacts.3F Dismas|(talk) 06:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the subject of Alan Weisman's book The World Without Us and the (unrelated) documentary Aftermath: Population Zero. EALacey (talk) 07:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fiction, the subject was explored by George R. Stewart in Earth Abides (1949). The Wikipedia article is lengthy, but I seem to recall much more in the novel about the collapse of machinery, electrical system, water pipes, etc. than indicated by that article. Pepso2 (talk) 11:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I expect that in a few decades routine maintenance will be automated or done by robots. Then if people disappeared, things might go on status quo for a very long time, until the robots arrive at a consensus that maintaining humanity's structures and facilities is pointless. Many of the explosions and failure on the series are of the nature of "With no human to mow the grass, turn on/off the pumps, refine the petroleum, operate the controls at the nuke plant, open/close the floodgates at the dam, refill the fuel tank, replace the battery, feed the dog, harvest the crop, fix the roof, tuckpoint the brick wall, replace the gasket, manufacture paint, mine minerals, etc., everything will fall to ruin." As soon as any of these jobs can be done by a robot cheaper than a human, the human will be laid off. Edison (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we develop machines that are too efficient, watch out. We could turn into the Krell. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The name[edit]

I'm looking for the name of this symbol in english. Thanks. Lord Hidelan (talk) 20:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's a type of Solomon's Knot. That article has no images (yet!), but compare with this google image search. ---Sluzzelin talk 09:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that article; I've done some cleanup there and added two images (more could be done...). AnonMoos (talk) 12:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Methodism = Puritanism?[edit]

Isn't Methodism a form of Puritanism, e.g. the Separatist and Independent types? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article on puritanism answers this one - "the term "puritan" is not strictly used to describe any new religious group after the 17th century, although several groups might be called "puritan" because their origins lay in the Puritan movement." Methodism arose in the 18th century and its origins did not lie in the Puritan movement. You could certainly draw parallels, but don't forget that early Methodism was, using Puritan terminology, "non-separating". Warofdreams talk 13:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So not all splinter, dissenting factions of the CoE, are "Puritan"? As far as I know, there's only three types of English Christianity: Catholic, Anglican and Puritan (as a broad term). 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence is the correct one. The broad term for British Protestants outside the Church of England is Non-Conformist; this includes those Puritan groups which survived long enough to be classified as such. Warofdreams talk 23:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that early Methodism was Evangelical, quite similar to many Pentecostal and some Baptist groups today, rather than Puritan, though none of these movements are really independent of one another. Methodists were involved in tent revivals a la Billy Graham, though Methodism as a whole has become more liberal in the past hundred years. 138.88.161.65 (talk) 23:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so these "Non-Conformists" broadly continue the Edwardian, Lady Jane Grey and Dudley expression of Christianity from the Tudor period, resurrected under the Cromwells, rather than the Henrician-Elizabethan Anglicanism, or the Marian Catholicism? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's too simplistic. Non-Conformism is a very broad designation, including Quakers, whose ideals have never been promoted by any monarch, to Calvinist groups who could fit your description, to Methodists (some, but not all of whom, identify as Calvinists). Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, all three forms of Christianity: Protestant, Anglican and Catholic, each have origins in royal patronage, but originally depending on the personality of the monarch, one of those three may be responsible for persecution of the other two, or preference of one and singling out the other? It would seem as though there had been no need for the Cromwellian usurpation of the government, when the monarchy had already been known for promoting "Non-Conformist" Protestantism. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:53, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my comment above, it would be difficult to argue that, just because a monarch has promoted a particular branch of Christianity, sooner or later another will do so, too. Raymond VI, Count of Toulouse encouraged the Cathars, but no later monarchs did. Even if there had been an expectation that this would eventually happen, it would have been highly unlikely to satisfy the Puritans, who were generally vehemently anti-Catholic but subject to increasing persecution from a monarch married to a Catholic and an archbishop who would not tolerate diversity within the church. Warofdreams talk 14:16, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

British Isles diaspora studies[edit]

Are there any studies of ethnic and shire distribution per colony across the former empire, to show which parts of the British Isles were more influential or important to each settlement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:13, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly shire by shire, but The Cousins' Wars by Kevin Phillips discusses what parts of England the colonists in the various American colonies came from. The contention of the book is that the American Revolution and the US Civil War were continuations of the Glorious Revolution. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:20, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How much more precise is that study compared to Albion's Seed? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably less so, though there are maps.  :) Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What is contained within the maps? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The parts of England where the various colonists came from. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 06:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was more interested in knowing differences between separate colonial efforts, such as America, vs Canada, vs Australia and New Zealand or South Africa. I assume most colonists in India were from London, but that's just a guess. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 10:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avignon Papacy & Counter-Reformation Catholicism[edit]

How come Catholicism became identified largely with those nations which held allegiance to Avignon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:35, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean, like Italy? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spain, France, Sicily...e.g. the Latin Arch. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speaking of the "great Catholic powers" and how they all seem to have been Avignonese in disposition, although I wonder about Austria. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria vs Prussia[edit]

How come Vienna isn't the capital of Germany and Berlin is? Why isn't Austria part of Germany, or even the focus, considering the imperial nature of that country, whereas Prussia was only a German colony of crusaders? I assume the fact that Prussia is the basis of modern Germany, that is an indication of a Protestant victory, seeing as how Catholic Austria is excluded? Please explain more than just: the last Holy Roman Emperor was deposed and left with the rump state of Austria. Even Austria, it seems, was merely a German colony of eastward expansion, so why doesn't Germany re-adopt a more "Frankish" identity and if they did focus more on West Germany in this sense, where would be the appropriate capital...Aachen or elsewhere? Are other German identities merely tied to Austria or Prussia? It would seem that Alemannic, Swabian, Frankish, Bavarian and Saxon cultures are just components of those two. Also, why doesn't the Czech Republic go by the name of Bohemia, or why doesn't Wikipedia use this name? Like Danzig, it is the English preference. "Czech" is almost way off the radar of my vocabulary, but Bohemia or Boehm is much more easily understood on cultural terms. I wonder why Bohemia didn't decide to stay with Germany, or why Germany and Italy and Austria, or even all with Prussia, couldn't be under the same federalism. But then, why not France and Germany stick together under the same government, based upon Charlemagne's people? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.239.21 (talk) 08:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The czech state is not called bohemia because bohmeia is only part of the czech state, there are other areas - see the map on Bohemia. Also see Moravia
As for your other questions - did you have a particular time in history to which your questions were addressed?83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:22, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much of an answer: even in the Czech language "Český" is only part of the state. —Tamfang (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some of your questions are too speculative to answer here ie why isn't there a france/germany or germany/italy/austria state - but have you heard of the European Union - which to an extent satisfies local nationalist interests in the broader context of a european state. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As to why austria did not form part of Bismarck's germany see Kleindeutsche Lösung - austria was not willing to separate from hungary, but hungary could not be part of a germany as imagined at that time. Also see Großdeutschland quote: "This united Germany was attempted to be completed, but regional, religious, and monarchical rivalries between Prussia and Austria prevented such a unification from taking place." 83.100.250.79 (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really covered your entire question. Factors affecting states makeup and boundaries include religion, ethnicity, rivers, mountains, wars, rival leaders, family history of kings, queens and emperors, and language as a non-complete list. It's very difficult to give a specific answer to such broad 'why?' questions.83.100.250.79 (talk) 12:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your question acctually would demand much more text and time to answer than I or 83.100.250.79 can devote here, and while 83.100.250.79 gives good answers I'll give some too, to other aspects: Berlin became the capital of united Germany in 1871, because it was the capital of the leading state, Prussia. Also, if you look at a map showing the borders of the time, Berlin was somewhat close to the geographical centre of Germany by then, whereas it is not anymore since Germany lost so much land in the east following the Second world war. When Germany was reunited in 1990, it took some years of debate before Berlin once again formally became the capital of the country; some people would have prefered to stick with Bonn, which was the de facto capital of West Germany from its foundation in 1949. – As for the Czech Republic, in the Czech language, "Czechia" and "Bohemia" acctually have the same name, but the English word for the province has for centuries been the same as the Latinized form of the German name Böhmen, while the country as a whole, created in the 20th Century, has gotten a name based on the Czech name. E.G. (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for the reason why Bohemia didn't stuck with Austria or Germany: it was part of the Austrian Emprie until 1918, when that empire desintegrated following the First world war. Still, there were many German speaking people living within the borders of the historical provinces of Bohemia and Moravia, but the founder and first president of the state of Czechoslovakia, Tomáš Garrigue Masaryk, was lucky in his dealings with the allied powers who had won the war and managed to secure that the even the almost fully German-speaking areas close to the border of Austria would become part of the new state. Acctually, I think there were more native German speakers in Czechoslovakia in the first decades, than there were Slovaks. The border areas to Austria and Germany where the German speaking people were in majority was called Sudetenland, and in 1939 (some months before the start of the Second world war) Hitler annexed Sudetenland to Germany and made the rest of Czechia a protectorate and Slovakia became formally independent but in practicality dependent on Germany. When Czechoslovakia was recreated after the war, including Sudetenland, the German speaking Czechoslovak citizens were expelled from the country. E.G. (talk) 12:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could be said that the Sudeten Germans received a raw deal in 1919, but many Czechs weren't inclined to feel too sympathetic at that point, since they felt that they themselves had been receiving a raw deal pretty much for the last three hundred years since about 1619. And a more practical and immediate concern was that if Bohemia was divided along ethnic lines, then the borders of any Czech state would be completely indefensible (the German army would be perched in the mountains looking down at the Czechs in the valleys), while most of the industrial assets would also be lost to the Czech state. The reality was that any Czech state established along strictly ethnic lines would be a weak balkanized fragment strongly dependent on its neighbors, and any hope of a strong and truly independent Czech state had to be based on the traditional boundaries of Bohemia and Moravia... AnonMoos (talk) 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As regards the 'czech question' see Name of the Czech Republic for an explanation of why neither Bohemia nor 'czecho' are a perfect choice.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see.
  • Why did Berlin and not Vienna become German capital, and why is Austria not part of Germany? -- It's quite simple really: because Prussia won the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, which led to the establishment of a new German Empire under Prussian leadership and exclusion of Austria within the next five years.
  • Why did Prussia become a leading German state? -- By the 18th century, Austria and Prussia had become by far the two most powerful German states. The reason for this is the Ostsiedlung -- the colonization of eastern territories by Germans in the Middle Ages. Because of their location at the eastern border of medieval Germany, Austria and Brandenburg were the prime beneficiaries of this development. Austria expanded into what is today Hungary, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Slovenia, Croatia, Romania, and Bosnia. Brandenburg expanded into what is today Poland, Russia (Kaliningrad), and Lithuania. For political reasons, Brandenburg renamed itself to Prussia in the 18th century -- this was really just a name change, the center of Brandenburg/Prussia was always Berlin and never in the original Prussia (around present-day Kaliningrad); see King in Prussia.
  • What about Frankish identity, Saxon, Bavarian identity? -- This is a very speculative question, but IMO wars decide the outcome of history, not people's identities... There was never any political reason for anyone to reestablish a Frankish identity in West Germany. OTOH, Bonn was capital for 50 years, and that's a Frankish city.
  • Why didn't the Czech Republic, Germany, Italy all stay in one country like it was in the Middle Ages? -- The most important reason is probably 19th century nationalism. Many present-day European countries were founded between 1806 and 1919, when nationalism was all the rage. Germany, Italy and Czechoslovakia are all products of this ideology, which stated that countries should be based on common languages -- Germany the country of German-speakers, Italy the country of Italian-speakers, and so on. An additional reason is of course that the original Holy Roman Empire had slowly, but completely disintegrated and so it never seemed to people like a model that one would want to emulate.
Hope these answers help. --Chl (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you all very much! Another set of questions: What is the present sense of German "ethnic" identity? Is the "Romanticist" take that Germany owes its character to the Frankish/French hegemony (as with France), or the Ostsiedlung, considering Berlin's primacy? What is the viability of restoring Prussia, or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria? Would Poland make this impossible? Maybe I have it wrong, but the extinction of Prussia could have been seen as genocide, in the expulsion of Germans, yes or no? Livonia was a component of Prussia, right? What do the Italians think of their Germanic heritage, apart from the obvious Lombard presence? This is going on a limb here, but by extension, are there any cultural remnants of the Franks in the eastern Mediterranean, or Genoan and Venetian ties? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Prussia revival thing...what is the prospect and the interest, the activism and legality of effecting it upon Kaliningrad, in respect of Russian-European relations and the expansion of the EU? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Livonia I don't think was ever part of Prussia - it fell out of control of the Teutonic knights before the expansion of Prussia, (being a little north of the easternmost extent of prussia)
What does "..or of Russia handing over Kaliningrad for a similar independent state as Austria" - you surely aren't suggesting a swap!? It's possible that Kalingrad might be returned to some other state (or become independent) at some time in the future, under different circumstances (such as the CIS somehow integrating with the EU..)
The 'extinction of Prussia' is not as far as I know anything like genocide - the term 'ethnic cleansing' is used to day, but it's worth noting that similar migrations have taken place in europe due to border changes many many times. - you meant the polish corridor and all that?
What do you mean 'restoring prussia'? it's not clear - however history as far as I know does not work backwards, it's possible that 'germans' may return to the eastern baltic in number in the future - in a similar fashion to the Ostsiedlung, made easier by the Schengen Agreement and other EU integration policies. But I can't imagine a state of prussia reappearing..
As for franks in the mediterraean I don't know, but I'm aware that there still are saxon germans in romania.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with a 'prussian revival thing' - though I have heard it said that to some extent that the baltic (and to lesser extent north sea) was becoming more like it was during the times of the Hanseatic league (which is a vaguely similar thing) - due to the baltic states and poland leaving russian influence etc.83.100.250.79 (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I was wondering about any movement to restore Prussia as an independent German state akin to Austria and if surrounding countries would even allow it. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean what is left of Prussia - a lot of it is in Poland now - which would be a problem.83.100.250.79 (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just Kaliningrad, but I wonder if Moscow sees that as a wedge to control EU affairs by proxy and which would be a reason not to revive Prussia. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revival of prussia seems too hypothetical to me to answer - there are lots of other states that used to exist - mercia, yugoslavia, the kingdom of burgundy etc . Why prussia.?
If you were asking about the legal status of Kalingrad/Kongisberg and it's future then somebody might be able to answer that - though we are not a very good crystal ball.
It's also worth noting that there were states in the area that predate prussia. 83.100.250.79 (talk) 10:41, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for Prussian revivalism, in 1995 there was a referendum on whether to join the current German states of Brandenburg and Berlin together into one unified administrative entity, and this hypothetical entity was widely referred to in the media as "Prussia" (though the officially-proposed name was apparently "Berlin-Brandenburg"). This referendum failed, so the voters of Brandenburg and Berlin apparently are not very interested in Prussian revivalism. In any case, the term "Prussia" originally referred to territory now part of Poland and Russia, so using the name "Prussia" would have very negative agressive irredentist connotations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Present-day German ethnic identity is pretty much based on the Empire of 1871. That's when most institutions of the German state that exists today were founded. So everyone from Bavarians to Schleswigers is included. Why would anyone want to restore Prussia? The Kaliningrad area is now populated mostly by Russians, I doubt they'd be excited about joining Poland or even Germany. The expulsion of Germans from the territories lost in World War II was not a genocide, since most people weren't killed, but a forceful expulsion is pretty bad too. There are still plenty of people in Germany who (or whose parents or grandparents) were expelled from eastern Germany and are still mighty angry about it, see Heimatvertriebene, even though they all got reimbursed for their lost property by the German government and thanks to the EU they can now even go back if they want to. Livonia did not belong to Prussia AFAIK. --Chl (talk) 16:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

70.171.239.21, you don't seriously think that Russia would give away any chunk of its territory – let alone one as strategically imporant as the Kaliningrad Oblast – without losing a war (and that would have to be a nasty nuclear war)? Perhaps the locals might welcome some greater autonomy to negotiate better relations with the EU, regarding trade, visas, etc. But I'm convinced that, as ethnic Russians, they're quite happy being part of the Russian Federation. When I first read your question about the extinction of Prussia, I thought meant the extermination of Old Prussians by the Teutonic Knights. Maybe you could call that genocide, but that's applying modern legal terminology to medieval events. — Kpalion(talk) 20:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kpalion, I understand what you mean about the hypocrisy with Prussia and the strategic importance for Moscow. It just seemed logical that those descendants of the expelled Germans would themselves wish to move in and rebuild Prussia, rather than be as the Jews were before Israel was rebuilt. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But it seems as though the ex-crusaders in the Baltic, are to never reclaim their position, much as the Hospitallers of Rhodes, or Templars, or others in the Mediterranean. The powers that be have apparently forever decided to ignore any such claims to military order "irredentism". 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quite rightly so, I'd say. — Kpalion(talk) 21:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it had seemed to me that they abolished a nation such as Prussia by evicting all of its people, whereas the Germans merely instituted a supersessionary state. Considering modern sentiments, I don't see why they shouldn't be allowed to have their own country on Kaliningrad, much as the Austrians have a separate country from Germany...then the capital of Germany doesn't have to be Berlin and Germany doesn't have to be defined as either Prussian or Austrian (being almost the equivalent of France being defined by an incorporation of Jerusalem, Constantinople, Antioch, Cyprus and other French crusader-colonist ventures), which are established East German types that have less to do with traditional West German relations in Switzerland and Holland. It also appears that the Russians did much the same as the Germans when it comes to having expanded to include an exclave population on the other side of a neighbouring country, such as Poland (e.g. Polish Corridor) and now it's the other Balts instead, which were all in the Livonian-controlled, United Baltic Duchy area. Were the Russians criticised for doing the same thing as the Germans? I'm not speaking of the Iron Curtain in general. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, East Prussia was an exclave of Germany until WW2 and the Kaliningrad Oblast is now an exclave of Russia. There seems to be a similarity, but the origins of those situations are quite different. The Teutonic State was founded in 1224 and continued to be a stand-alone politial entity until, in 1618, the Duchy of Prussia united with Margraviate of Brandenburg under the House of Hohenzollern to form Brandenburg-Prussia, later renamed Kingdom of Prussia. The two parts of this new kingdom were separated by Royal Prussia which was part of the Kingdom of Poland. This gap was bridged in the First Partition of Poland in 1772. In 1918, East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany again, as Poland regained independence and access to the Baltic Sea. So the East Prussian exclave was a result of a centuries-long historical development. The Kalininged Oblast, on the other hand, was created artificially when Stalin decided to incorporate into the Soviet Union that part of East Prussia which he didn't magnanimously award to Poland. And instead of attaching it to the Lithuanian SSR, he made it part of the Russian SFSR, so after the USSR's dissolution Kaliningrad stayed with Russia. — Kpalion(talk) 20:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this region, alone of the Iron Curtain, remain with Russia, considering how contentious that would be seen by the rest of Europe and Germany in particular? Have there ever been calls for Russia to cede Kaliningrad, or establish independence for this oblast, or does the Potsdam agreement trump any consideration? 70.171.239.21 (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Germany's eastern border was established as a result of World War II, which the Germans lost and the Soviets won. It's unlikely to change unless – God forbid – there's another war and Germany wins. German expellees may be unhappy about that, but it isn't going to change the geopolitical situation much. — Kpalion(talk) 21:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone want to re-establish Prussia? Prussia does have a pretty negative image in modern Germany (standing for militarism and expansionism). The vast majority of Germans are glad to see it finished. In terms of territorial claims, we've had that debate, it's been settled with the 1990 reunification agreement. Can't see any benefit to anyone in opening that can of worms again. I think you will find that most Germans these days have had enough of military conflicts to last a few lifetimes. BTW, I'm a descendent of the people that were evicted from East Prussia. There's plenty of people in that situation around. Nobody (under age 80 that is) has any interest in revisionism. It's been a looooong time. Somehow I get the impression that the english speaking world cannot understand that.195.128.251.74 (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

relatively recent Japanese short-story collection with S&M themes[edit]

About 10 years ago, there was a collection of short stories translated from Japanese and published in the US - I don't remember the name of the author or the book's title, or even when the book was originally first published in Japan. All I recall for sure is that in one of the stories there is a moment when the man (husband ? boyfriend ?) gets out a fishing rod to whip the woman (wife ? girlfriend ?), who grows visibly excited at the idea. For information, and despite what the above might lead one to believe, it wasn't genre erotica or anything of the sort. I am fairly sure the book (hardback) was published by a university press or an small press of literary fiction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philippe Laurichesse (talk • contribs) 08:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legislators mass resign and recontest?[edit]

Apart from the Northern Ireland by-elections, 1986, are there any more instances where a group of legislators resign en masse in order to contest the by-election? F (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was the occasion when four leading Labour members of the Greater London Council resigned to fight byelections on the issue of whether the GLC should be abolished. The resignation was 25 years ago this week, as it happens. The Conservatives had won all their constituencies the year before, but decided not to fight the byelections so all four were easily re-elected. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simultaneous resignations in 1881 of U.S. Senators from New York Roscoe Conkling and Thomas C. Platt is vaguely analogous. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:02, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't really answer your question, but in Malaysia, that's not even possible from 1990 since anyone who resigns can't stand for re-election for 5 years [1] Nil Einne (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Senate assembly[edit]

Typically where would the Roman Senate assemble during the Roman Republic for debates as depicted in this color picture?
or this black & white picture of Gaius Gracchus debating as in the article Roman assemblies.--Doug Coldwell talk 21:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cicero denounced Catiline before the Senate (the event shown in your color picture) at the Temple of Jupiter Stator. I don't know if that was a normal place for the Senate to meet, though. --Cam (talk) 21:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These three links might answer everything :Comitium, Roman Forum and more specifically Curia Hostilia 83.100.250.79 (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two questions:
1. Unless there is another reference in the literature, I would expect the debate to take place where other senate debates took place -see above.
2. a. No they are different. b. Don't know.83.100.250.79 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. According to this source there was a temple to Mars on Capitoline Hill on the "hill to Mars." Also The Penny cyclopædia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge By George Long on page 269 makes reference to temples on Capitoline Hill built in the time of Romulus being "of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune." Other temples were raised successively on the Capitoline hill, such as that of Juno Alónela, with the mint annexed to it; of Jupiter Feretrius, said to have been built by Romulus ; of Mars, of Venus, of Fortune, and of Ims and Serapis. Apparently then Jupiter Feretrius consisted of the temples of Mars, Venus, Fortune. Can you explain further of the "hill to Mars?"--Doug Coldwell talk 15:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously "hill to mars" means the hill was specifically dedicated to mars, but why mars was chosen over the other two gods is not known to me. I've heard the phrase elsewhere (it has a certain ring to it) - but don't know the reasoning behind it.83.100.250.79 (talk) 15:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC) (Mars is an 'earthy' god compared to others.. eg jupiter - sky/cosmos, venus-water/groves maybe?)[reply]
Thanks again for your further detailed answer. Then perhaps Scipio (minor) could have been brought to the "hill of Mars" (or the area, which perhaps then was Jupiter Feretrius) to speak to the people of Rome concerning destroying Carthage? Wasn't Mars also the war god and perhaps the reason why Scipio would give such a speech to the people at this location?--Doug Coldwell talk 15:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How would you analyze the meanings of these two hypothetically statements? Is "hill of Mars" symbolically used here?
  • 1. Cato took Scipio, and brought him to the hill of Mars saying, "May you know what this old doctrine, whereof I speak, is."
  • 2. Then Scipio stood in the midst of the hill of Mars and said, "Men of Rome, you do recognize that in all things we are convinced as to our belief that we will prevail." --Doug Coldwell talk 19:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Without any further context I'd assume that "hill of Mars" refers to a place so named, and well known to the people in the text. It doesn't seem to be metaphorical or anything like that - such as a state of being or of mind.83.100.250.79 (talk) 13:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crusader military order ethnicities & the Reformation[edit]

So the Mediterranean crusader states were considered "Frankish", but the Baltic ones were "Teutonic". What about the Genoan & Venetian areas? Armenia?

Could differences between the Frankish Mediterranean and Teutonic Baltic lead to differences around the time of the Reformation, with their cultural communities becoming Catholic and Protestant respectively? If so, it can explain partly why Anglicanism is said to have both parts, with German principalities providing the governorship of the CoE, but having lands such as Malta, Gibraltar, Minorca, Cyprus, Ionia, Genoa, Elba and Corsica, as well as the Diocese of Gibraltar in Europe being the base of Anglicanism in Europe, rather than some Protestant area. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 22:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Frank" was a broad generalization whereby the Muslim world during crusader times incorrectly labeled all Western European christians as "Franks"; likely because the first people who turned them back in Spain were the Franks (Charles Martel) and the earliest Kings of Jerusalem (i.e. Godfrey of Bouillon) were also Franks; however the Crusader movement was not confined to the "Franks" who, after all, where only one of the settled Germanic tribes. The Franks did establish a pretty sizable hegemony over modern France and Germany (Francia), but there were also other Germanic peoples who established similar hegemonies (the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, the Vandals in North Africa]]; and certainly many of these people also participated in Crusades as well, as well as many non-Germanic peoples.
Also, it is an incorrect statement that the former lands of the Teutonic Knights became largely protestant; much of these areas remained majority Catholic to this day (Poland, Lithuania, Estonia). Most of the "Protestant" areas of Northern Europe were those that had been long Catholic, and weren't part of the "crusader" lands of the Teutonic Knights. Other than England, Protestantism first took hold in places that lacked a strong national government, such as the Holy Roman Empire, where the multitudinous principalites were largely left to their own devices, and Switzerland, which was a weak confederation without any sort of strong national government as well. In states with a strong monarch and centralized government, such as France, Spain, and Austria; well, they remained largely Catholic. Italy is perhaps an exception, but the proximity to Rome goes a long way towards keeping the fragmented peninsula in line. --Jayron32 04:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To clear up some other things, the Venetian crusader states were generally considered to be merchant colonies of Venice, independent of whatever Frankish state they happened to be attached to. Armenia was always separate, although it was heavily Latinized during the crusades. Not all the crusaders were "Franks" per se, and there were certainly "Teutonic" crusaders in the Holy Land; sometimes contemporary authors liked to show off their erudition by referring to contemporary nations with classical names, so Germans are often referred to as Teutons or Alemanni. The Teutonic Order itself was originally founded in Jerusalem, and was referred to there as the Ordo Teutonicorum just as it was everywhere else. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Jayron32, but the OP is correct and you are wrong; most of the territories in Prussia and Livonia ruled by the Teutonic Order and the Livonian Order respectively became Protestant after those orders were dissolved. By the terms of the Second Peace of Thorn that ended the Thirteen Years' War, the Teutonic State was divided into two parts; the western part, which became known as Royal Prussia, was ceded to the Kingdom of Poland. The rest became a Polish fief, with each newly elected grand master required to pay homage to the Polish king. Grand Master Albert of Hohenzollern refused to pay homage to King Sigismund I which resulted in another Polish–Teutonic War, again won by Poland. Albert, under personal influence of Martin Luther, converted to Lutheranism and, by the Treaty of Kraków in 1525, dissolved the Prussian branch of the Teutonic Order and established a secular, Protestant Duchy of Prussia with himself as a hereditary duke and a vassal of the Polish king.
In a similar development in Livonia, the Livonian Order sought Polish protection from the Muscovy in the Livonian War. By the terms of the Treaty of Vilna, the Livonian Order was dissolved in 1561, and Livonia became part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth except for a wedge-shaped territory in what is now Latvia, which became a Polish fief known as the Duchy of Courland and Semigallia. Gotthard Kettler, the last grand master of the Livonian Order, adopted Lutheranism and became the first duke of Courland. As a legacy of these events, East Prussia, Latvia and Estonia became mostly Protestant areas. After World War II, East Prussia was divided among Poland and the Russian SFSR while the Protestant German population was replaced with Catholic Poles and Orthodox Russians. Modern Latvia and Estonia are mostly atheist today, but Lutheranism is still the dominant denomination in both countries.
It is also incorrect to imply that Reformation didn't happen in Poland and Lithuania. Various Protestant movements were actually very popular in Poland and religious dissidents were able to win freedom of worship which for about a century made Poland a country of religious tolerance unparallelled elsewhere in Europe. Polish nobles' answer to St. Bartholomew's Day was the Act of the Warsaw Confederation in which they pledged to resolve religious disputes without resorting to violence. The Roman Catholic Church regained its foothold in Poland in the 17th century thanks to post-Trent Counter-Reformation and to numerous wars against non-Catholic enemies (Sweden, Russia, Ottoman Empire) which equated Catholicism with patriotism. The pacifist Polish Brethren were the first vicitms of this new attitude; they were expelled in 1658 for their refusal to fight during the Swedish occupation. — Kpalion(talk) 17:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kpalion, what you say about Balts being mostly atheist...does this have anything to do with how recent they converted to Christianity, compared to other countries? I wonder about that, because the Czech descendents of the Hussites appear to be even less religious, much as it appears that the Cathar-Huguenot presence in France was responsible for active secularism in that country's government. 70.171.239.21 (talk) 20:05, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably got more to do with being part of the Soviet Union for 50 years. — Kpalion(talk) 20:28, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason the Czechs seem to be a lot less devout than the Poles (for example) has to do with the fact that for the Poles, Catholicism became a symbol of Polish nationalism during periods when Poland was being kept down by foreigners (many of whom, such as Prussians and Russians, were non-Catholic). By contrast, among the Czechs Catholicism can be identified more with foreign oppressors than with Czech nationalism -- since on three separate historical occasions, politically-active Czechs pretty much chose a religion other than the Catholicism of Rome (i.e. Greek Othodoxy ca. 900 A.D., Hussism in the 15th century, and quasi-Protestantism in the early 17th century), only to have Catholicism imposed by German military might each time... AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Humanities/2009_August_2&oldid=1158714292"