Humanities desk
< May 22	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 24 >

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.

May 23

Protestant Ranavalona

What denomination of Protestantism were Queen Ranavalona II and Queen Ranavalona III of Madagascar? Was it Congregationalism or Anglicanism or something else?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism that arose during the Puritan movement; its basically the "Puritan" denomination. Ranavalona III's article says she was educated by the London Missionary Society which was "largely Congregationalist in outlook". Not really good enough to add any information to her article, but if you just want to know for your personal edification, it seems likely she worshiped in the Congregationalist tradition. --Jayron32 03:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... The Hawaiian missionaries in 1820 were called Calvinists and Congregationalists. Weren't those different denominations? I thought Calvinism was the religion preaching predestination that broke from Catholicism at the same time as Lutheranism and if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism (the Puritans purifying the Anglican Church), how can they be the same thing? Unless Congregationalism (from what I read) is an offshoot of Anglicanism which follows some beliefs of Calvinism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Calvinism is a theological position, not a denomination. Congregationalism is a denomination that I believe at the time tended to have Calvinist theology, though its defining feature had more to do with church organization than theology. --Trovatore (talk) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Calvinism is not itself a distinct denomination, but rather a broad classification of Protestant theology that is distinct and separate from the Lutheran tradition. The Puritans (i.e. Congregationalists) were basically English Calvinists, just as the Presbyterians were Scottish Calvinists, and the Huguenots were French Calvinists. Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism. A Calvinist one. --Jayron32 04:05, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, but that makes it sound as though the main difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is national origin. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of the period, but I would have said the fundamental difference was church governance. That's even how they were named — Congregationalists uphold the freedom of each congregation, whereas Presbyterians are guided by presbyters ("elders", roughly bishops).

And if Congregationalism is an offshoot of Anglicanism, it's in roughly the sense the the United States is an offshoot of England — shares many of the same values, but began in open revolt against the form of leadership, specifically the English monarchy in both cases.

(By the way, I grew up in the Congregational Church, which could either inform my views or bias them, I suppose. It is not (today) noticeably Calvinist.) --Trovatore (talk) 05:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot of common ground between the various Non-Conformist churches in England. As I understand it, a lot of evangelical missionary organisations were staffed by like-minded Christians of various Protestant (and non-Anglican) churches. In England today, the Congregationalists and English Presbyterians have joined together to form the United Reformed Church. It is also common to have a "Free Church", which is shared by URC and Baptist congregations, who worship together with a single minister.[1] Alansplodge (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The other difference between Congregationalists and Presbyterians is on Church governance (hence the name difference). Congregationalists believe in the autonomy of the individual Congregation, while Presbyterians are governed by regional assemblies of elected "elders" or "presbyters". See Presbyterian polity and Congregationalist polity. However, on matters of theology, rather than church governance, they historically have very similar beliefs, broadly in agreement with other forms of "Reformed Christianity". And the parallels between (traditional, Episcopalian) Anglicanism and Congregationalism and the UK and US is particularly apt; many of the early settlers in the U.S. were Congregationalists, and the movement is closely tied to early American history; see Massachusetts Bay Colony, Plymouth Colony, and Congregational church for background on the connections between early America and the Congregationalist church. Congregational governance is still today likely the most common model of Protestant church governance in the U.S., if you take into account that 25% or so of Christians in the United States are Baptists (who follow that model of Church governance), as well as non-trivial membership in other similarly organized groups like United Church of Christ (modern descendant of the original Puritan Congregationalist churches), Churches of Christ, Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), various Nondenominational churches, etc. --Jayron32 12:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forced deathbed conversions

Are there any famous cases of forced deathbed conversions? So not forced conversions or Mormon conversion/baptism of the dead.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 03:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's forced, was it a conversion? --Jayron32 04:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I meant baptism.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, like drowning? Waterboarding? --Jayron32 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it means forced by the circumstances. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no. I'm done screwing with you for my own amusement. There were apostates that "converted" under torture, often shortly before execution. See Auto-da-fé. --Jayron32 04:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catholicism has conditional baptisms which may be done for an unconscious dying person in case that person sincerely wished to baptised but was unable due to circumstances (and is also done for other reasons, for other reasons). In fact, sacramental baptism is not necessary if the dying truly wanted it, given the concept of baptism by desire. But it's considered highly improper if there was an expressed wish against it, and invalid if it was not truly the supposed convert's wish. Conversion against the will is invalid in all cases. See Baptism and Conversion at The Catholic Encyclopedi. Of course historically these strictures have not always been followed in practice, as with the mass 'conversion' of pagan tribes during the Christianization of Europe. μηδείς (talk) 04:42, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very prominent case in the middle east in the last century was Michel Aflaq... AnonMoos (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would John Wilmot, 2nd Earl of Rochester count? "His mother had him attended in his final weeks by her religious associates, particularly Gilbert Burnet, later Bishop of Salisbury. A deathbed renunciation of libertinism was published and promulgated as the conversion of a prodigal son. This reported renunciation became legendary, reappearing in numerous pious tracts over the next two centuries. Because the first published account of this story appears in Burnet's own writings, its accuracy has been disputed, with Burnet accused of having shaped the account of Rochester's denunciation of libertinism to enhance his own reputation." He iro 04:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fried chicken and watermelon

Why is it considered racist to say that black people like fried chicken and watermelon? Isn't it like saying that Italians like pizza or Russian drink vodka? In all cases, it's a stereotype that might be accurate or not, but there is nothing intrinsically bad about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:10, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This similar thread might be of use to you... Cheers! ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 11:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Watermelon stereotype... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Written by yours truly ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 14:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't the statement that "black people like fried chicken and watermelon" be racist? The definition of racist is "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics". Bus stop (talk) 15:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The belief that different cultural groups would be different is not racist, it is self-evident. If I go to France, or South Korea, or Vietnam, or Nigeria, I find people groups that eat different foods, listen to different music, have different traditions, etc. That is not racist to recognize that. What makes it racist is to use those cultural differences as part of a caricature which is overtly designed to be insulting or degrading. That's the distinction. Noting that different cultures eat different foods is not racist. Using those differences as a point of insult is. --Jayron32 17:29, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mistakenly switched the paradigm to "cultural groups" from "racial groups" (the OP asked about "black people"). "Racism" can only be at issue when differences are attributed to race, i.e. heredity, rather than to culture. PlayCuz (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional definition of racism is more along the lines of regarding certain races as immutably biologically inferior. Insofar as race corresponds to ethnicity in some cases, members of of an ethnoracial group will obviously tend to share some cultural characteristics (though such generalizations will be more statistical rather than invariable, generally with little connection to pure biology)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:44, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no cultural difference as even whites like fried chicken... Just that it's expressed in such a way that's it's deemed derogatory. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 15:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, enjoyment of fried chicken and watermelon by blacks is an offensive stereotype, racist in that historical depictions implied that the enjoyment is disportionate relative to whites, i.e. so innate and irresistable as to be a defining characteristic of blacks, apt to afford amusing (read: "derisive") scenarios, such as luring an escaping slave out of hiding by "tempting" him with the "bait" of a plate of fried chicken and watermelon. It's the attribution of lack of self-control rather than of pleasure which suggests racism. PlayCuz (talk) 03:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some whites have even been known to like watermelon [2]. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bus stop took that quote completely out of context. The linked source actually says: "the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others". You cannot remove the and-part from a definition. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer boneless fried chicken and seedless watermelon. Now guess my race....165.212.189.187 (talk) 20:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Marathon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:14, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

stick your tongue out. Anyone Taste that? Me either.68.36.148.100 (talk) 01:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

read 68's comment just above. Make sense to you? Me [n]either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tasteless.165.212.189.187 (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a reference to "bite your tongue", I'm guessing in regards to using the BM for a joke after the bombings. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to figure. The IP geolocates to the Boston area, so the first "race" that came to mind was the Marathon. I could just as easily have said the Daytona 500 or the Kentucky Derby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Essay on Jeffrey Dahmer - would it be biased?

Sock.

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Hi, please I'm working on an essay on Jeffrey Dahmer for the Criminology class at the University and I would write this as follow "...while his biological mother Joyce left him behind alone in their Ohio home where Dahmer committed his first murder; Lionel (his father)'s second wife, Shari Jordan, took care of Jeffrey like a true son". Is that biased?. The essay MUST be unbiased. Thank you! Monteithh (talk) 11:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do your sources have to say about it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:19, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My source is Lionel Dahmer's book "A Father's Story"... but he didn't like Joyce very much after the divorce that's why I'm asking for help. I'm confused if that would be or not unbiased. Thank you. Monteithh (talk) 11:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an "insider's" viewpoint on something of this nature is risky. Maybe you should start by finding some reviews of that book, and see what they have to say. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I get it, thank you Baseball Bugs very much!!! Monteithh (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Side note moved to talk page - Cucumber Mike (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC))[reply]

Western religions that are not so individualistic...

Are there some contemporary Western religions or religious movements that are not so individualistic? I am thinking of a religion that emphasizes more on communal worship and collective religious experiences, a religion that develops its beliefs in narratives using various literary devices instead of being so explicit about them, a religion that focuses more on having a collective social/cultural identity instead of just what an individual believes, a religion that encourages adherents to protect the reputation of themselves and other people by working together out of charity and benevolence. I was thinking of Unitarian Universalism, because it had communal worship, but I'm not sure how one can be a "cultural Universal Unitarian". Maybe someone that prays privately but does not attend the UU congregation. That still sounds individualistic. Sneazy (talk) 19:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those characteristics describe most forms of Judaism fairly well, especially the "communal worship and collective religious experiences" bit. Judaism is a collective/national religion that traditionally values communal practice above and beyond individual beliefs. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches seem really non-individualistic from a Protestant perspective. 109.99.71.97 (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is key. The idea that religion is all about one's personal relationship with God is a Protestant convention, and one which especially gained popularity from the 19th century onwards. Anglicanism and many expressions of Lutheranism are also pretty collectively-minded, and attract cultural adherents in a similar (though not identical) way to Judaism. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The individualism of Protestantism is arguably a forerunner of the sociopolitical individualism of the Age of Enlightenment. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguable indeed. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in reading about European pagan/reconstructionist religions like Germanic neopaganism and Romuva (religion). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jehovah's Witnesses promote close relationships among themselves at the congregational level (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=close-knit+congregation&p=par) and at the global level (http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/s/r1/lp-e?q=international+conventions&p=par).

—Wavelength (talk) 00:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Laws regarding abuse of free drink refills in cafes/fast food places?

e.g., is there anything that makes it illegal to buy one drink for a dollar (or whatever) and then use it as a pretext to hang around in the establishment all day, topping up your cup every couple of hours? Or would the business be breaking the law/leave themselves open to lawsuit by asking you to leave? I'm interested in the laws regarding this in the different countries of the contributors here. Just a hypothetical question. I've never done this, nor do I plan to. I was recently reading about a certain unnamed internet celebrity who used this tactic in order to meet women (then would knuckle up to the mallcops when they asked him to leave) and it got me thinking about this. --31.185.228.238 (talk) 22:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there are such laws, they would vary from state to state, and possibly even from city to city. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of "free refills" really doesn't exist in the UK as far as I know. Alansplodge (talk) 22:22, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does exist in the UK but I don't think an establishment would be obliged to give infinite refills. This story shows that "all you can eat" doesn't always mean precisely "all you can eat". Itsmejudith (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant articles would probably be implied contract and the "duty of good faith" inherent in all common law contracts; there would also be theft of services (not the scenario you describe, but close) and trespass (they could ask you to leave). There'as a "reasonableness" element read into implied qualifications like that. Filing fees have a way of keeping petty matters out of the courts. Shadowjams (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested to know that Asda in the UK used to have free refills in their cafés a few years ago, but withdrew this concession because of abuse. Dbfirs 09:06, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see an issue. Any establishment has a right to ask a customer to leave. It is hard to see what cause of action the customer would have, given what he's probably consumed already. The request to leave would be backed up if need be by the police and any civil issue left for later. I don't see much happening, or for the need for a law.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Soft drinks and coffee are incredibly cheap. Something in the ballpark of $1/liter or even less. You'll have to drink a lot to cause any kind of economical damage, provided that you are not throwing it away. But even then, others consumers will balance your consumption, and the total sum will still be positive for the restaurant. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More than the right to ask them to leave, in most places they can call police and have them "trespass" you, getting your name, address and the like.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional characters becoming real people

Cardinal Lamberto is a fictional character in the fictional movie The Godfather Part III. In the story, he's seen as the likely successor to the real life Pope Paul VI. When Paul VI dies, Lamberto is elected his successor and takes the papal name John Paul I. In real life, when Paul VI died, Cardinal Albino Luciani was elected in his place and chose the name John Paul I. In the movie, the new Pope is murdered 33 days into his papacy. In real life, Pope John Paul I died 33 days into his papacy and it has long been suspected by some that he was murdered.

Clearly, Cardinal Lamberto is modelled after Cardinal Luciani: same papal predecessor, same papal name, same length of reign, same (suspected) cause of death. We could almost say the Lamberto character is partly fictional and partly real.

I'm trying to get a handle on this plot device, and wondering about other stories or movies where a fictional character sort of morphs into a real historical person. Cardinal Lamberto is categorised in Category:Fictional versions of real people but that didn't really help me very much. Most of those are about real people who are made to inhabit fictional plots. The Lamberto case is the opposite: a fictional person made to inhabit a real plot (or a plot that's partially fictional and partly real).

All comments gratefully and (I hope) gracefully received. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:21, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite the same thing, but actor John O'Hurley, who played a fictionalized version of J. Peterman on the Seinfeld TV show of the 1990s, became a real-life investor in the real company, helping them to avert financial trouble in the early 2000s. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And again, not quite the same thing, but the Bubba Gump Shrimp Company, a fictional restaurant in the movie Forrest Gump, has become a real-life chain of seafood restaurants, on the make-believe premise that Forrest Gump actually started the company. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I may have misunderstood you, but do the examples listed under "No Celebrities Were Harmed" fit? ---Sluzzelin talk 23:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or what about the long list at Roman à clef - Sussexonian (talk) 23:37, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks both. They all seem to fit into the "thinly disguised portrayals of real people with the names changed" category. The Cardinal Lamberto case is different. There was nothing to suggest he was supposed to be anything like the real Cardinal Albino Luciani. The only things Lamberto and Luciani had in common were that they were both elected pope, both took the same name, and both died 33 days into their pontificates. That bit was obviously a rip-off of real life, but up till that point it seems to have been totally fictional. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Godfather III was filmed 12 years after the fact, so it seems more like they took the events of 1978 and fictionalized them. Law & Order used to do this kind of thing all the time, and often while the real-life case was still freshly in the public consciousness. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's more like what I'm talking about. In a L&A episode, we might see a crime committed in an unusual manner that closely resembles a real-life crime that most viewers would have heard about. But the perpetrator in L&A would not be made to have any of the real-life perp's history or characteristics. Maybe not even the same sex. Certainly not the same name. The only thing they had in common was they both committed the same crime. The L&A character could be said to be quasi-real-life in respect of the crime, but fictional in every other respect. In The Godfather Part III, Mario Puzo took it even further, by making a fictional character (Lamberto) become a real-life pope (John Paul I). He could have chosen to call him Pope Randolph I, but he preferred to blur the boundary between fiction and fact by giving him the same papal name and short reign as Paul VI's real successor had. That's pretty unusual in my experience. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 23:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's more than unusual, it's downright defamatory, or could be claimed so. But they probably had the usual disclaimer somewhere, about the characters being fictional. Hence it wasn't "the" John Paul I, but rather some other "John Paul I", in some parallel universe. And you're right, L&A always said that their ideas were "ripped [off] from the headlines", but they constructed thoroughly fictional cases. But there must be other situations that are similar to the one Godfather III. How about Crash Davis, who was a still-living person portrayed (with a fictional persona) in Bull Durham? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Films often say "based on true events" or "inspired by true events". You can search the terms to find many examples. The usage varies but the latter often implies more deviation from the events [3] and less likelihood to use the real names. Some of the reasons to change names are to avoid lawsuits and to avoid offending those who know the real people or story (they are sometimes offended anyway). PrimeHunter (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

French prisoners of war in Engeland

Transferred question. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In File:Journal de Bruxelles nr 167 1800 (614, 615).png (colom 1) I read that French prisoners where mistreated in Portchester. I suspect they where held in Portchester castle. Strangely there is talk of a French commissioner being responsible for the mistreatment. Was it usual that the responsibility of the treatment of prisoners was by the country of the prisoners? This seams strange to me.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:20, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Translation issue? Could it mean commissioner for French prisoners? rather than the commissioner being french. In any case this is something that ahould be asked at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities.Geni (talk) 23:00, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if that was usual, but it definitely says he ("Otto") was the French commissioner in England. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the French were expected to provide clothing and additional rations for prisoners held in England, who received only subsistence rations from their British captors. A search of Google Books produces John Debritt (editor), A Collection of State Papers Relative to the War Against France Carried On by Great Britain and Several Other European Powers, London 1802. On page 14, after several pages of correspondence bemoaning the condition of French prisoners at Porchester Castle and Norman Cross, there is a letter of 18th October 1800, from Monsieur Otto of the Commissary of the French Republic in England to the Commissioners of the Transport Board. M. Otto says of the French prisoners in England, "I can only lament the deplorable situation in which these unfortunate men are reduced, and my own inability to provide clothing for them without having received the necessary orders and instructions from my government to defray the expense." He goes on to argue that the French government is providing clothing for the prisoners held in France "although not exactly English" (ie they are from other nations of the Second Coalition) and suggests that the British might consider reciprocating. Eventually on 1st January 1801, Henry Dundas writes that "...His Majesty can no longer consider them simply as French prisoners... but as destitute fellow creatures, abandoned by that (French) government..." and agrees to pay for "...warm clothing, proper for the season..." (p. 34). Alansplodge (talk) 00:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article; Louis-Guillaume Otto, which describes him as "commissioner for the exchange of prisoners of war". Alansplodge (talk) 01:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, you may be interested in this; Francis Abell, Prisoners of war in Britain, 1756 to 1815: a record of their lives, their romance and their sufferings, Oxford University Press 1914, which you can read on-line. Alansplodge (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially, I feel like mentioning that prisoners who were sailors could normally expect much better treatment than those who were soldiers. Because experienced sailors were so valued by both sides, they could normally expect to be released in prisoner exchanges within weeks or months. They were often granted parole on extremely generous terms (and thus not imprisoned at all). A British sailor commented after the Battle of the Nile that its aftermath was notable in that it was the first occasion where captured French sailors actually seemed upset at being captured; previously their attitude had been "it does not matter so much - today you capture me, soon enough I will be released and then perhaps I will capture you". (Naval life was rather unpleasant anyway, and battles were frequently bloodbaths, so surviving to be captured wasn't such a bad thing.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]