Humanities desk
< March 18	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 20 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

March 19

Last battle determined by archers

When was the last battle in which some soldiers on the victorious side were trained and equipped as archers, and a majority of historians agree that was likely to have been a but-for cause of the battle's outcome (whether because the battle was won with arrows, or because their archery training improved soldiers' accuracy with guns)? Neon Merlin 01:00, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been 1642 according to comments at Longbow#History and English longbow#Sixteenth century and later. The longbow was the only bow whose arrows could sometimes pierce metal armor, but the longbow required constant training and practice from an early age to be used effectively in combat... AnonMoos (talk) 10:16, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The use of longbows in Europe continued into the 17th century, but determining whether they were the decisive weapon requires some judgement. Possibly the oddly-named Battle of the Herrings (1429) is a candidate, when the French and Scots attacked an English supply convoy and were beaten off by archers. The French thereafter learned to outflank the English archers, as at the Battle of Patay (1429) and the Battle of Formigny (1450), or batter them with cannon, as at the Battle of Castillon (1453). Alansplodge (talk) 12:27, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See also The Longbow in the Wars of the Roses, when the longbow was still in widespread use, but success in battle was usually the result of the combination of arms rather than the dominance of one. Alansplodge (talk) 15:31, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to find more concerning The Victory of Khorgos depicting a 1758 battle and mentioned in Mounted archery#Decline but no luck really. fiveby(zero) 03:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I might put in a bid for some North American engagement between native Americans and colonialists, or even post-revolution Americans. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly "Mad" Jack Churchill in 1940. The record is a bit spotty, but he regularly went into battle with a longbow and claymore, and some reports say that he recorded the last ever kill with an English longbow in 1940, but there's some dispute over that, given that a) The man did some truly mythical shit in his life and b) some of the mythical shit he did was real, but some of it was actually mythical (made up). --Jayron 32 12:28, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The last significant battle won by a force without firearms against one with, that I can think of, would have been some of the battles in the Anglo-Zulu War; some of the Zulu were armed with antiquated muskets and rifles, but mostly they fought with spears such as the Assegai and the Ixwa. The Zulu were shockingly effective against the British in engagements such as the Battle of Isandlwana, where the Zulu routed the British in 1879, surprisingly late for a force armed with essentially iron-age weaponry against a force with relatively modern rifles. --Jayron 32 14:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isandlwana was more due to being an accidental reverse ambush than Zulu arms, as well as collapse of command structure especially over the ammunition Kind Regards, NotAnotherNameGuy (talk) 22:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Sylvia Likens

I'm really confused on why her sister Jenny didn't report to the police much sooner? The horrific torture had been going for 3 months. Based on the article, Jenny could walk around freely. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 06:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book The Indiana Torture Slaying, later reissued as House of Evil, states: "The thought of going to the police for help never occurred to the crippled, 15-year-old child."^[1] Furthermore, our article states that Jenny "struggled against the urge to notify family members, as she had been threatened by Gertrude that she would herself be abused and tortured to the same degree as her sister if she did so", and also that she was ridiculed and subjected to bullying by neighbourhood girls if she alluded to her sister's situation. When her older sister Dianna was told about the torture, she did not believe them but believed they were exaggerating. So if the thought perhaps did occur to Jenny, it would have been reasonable for her to be afraid the police too would not believe her and that Gertrude then would find out she had notified the police and also torture her. --Lambiam 11:53, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying the police wouldn't take the report seriously (without investigation) back in the 60s? Nowadays, most reports are taken very seriously. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 18:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know the reputation of the Indianapolis police department in these days, and also not if Jenny, who was only 15, was aware of its reputation. I do know that in these days many police departments did routinely not handle reports of sexual assault and even rape very seriously. --Lambiam 22:17, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the Taliban hate ISIS?

I gather that the Taliban consider ISIS to be extremists, terrorists, murderers and heretics, worthy of extermination on sight. But what's the full story behind that? --146.200.128.101 (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read Islamic State–Taliban conflict. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

'History of women' 'attending non-gender segregated large public gatherings as audience'

Greetings,

For one of my on going research I am looking for help in identifying sources/ refs on:

'History of women' 'attending non-gender segregated large public gatherings as audience or as common participant'.
Public gatherings may be of recreational/ sports / music / religious / political / social nature
- Emphasis on: 'non-gender segregated' , 'large public gatherings' , 'as audience or as common participant'
- I am looking information on women of all background including the western ones.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 10:18, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The obvious example which occurred week after week after week throughout Western civilization for over 1500 years is attending church... AnonMoos (talk) 14:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have attended Catholic Holy Mass services in Europe last century in which women were seated on the left and men on the right. While under one roof, they were spatially segregated. I suspect that in Orthodox churches such segregation is still common. --Lambiam 21:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...the segregation of the sexes in church was quite normal in western Europe through the medieval period. Although it was not practiced by the earliest Christian communities, the phenomenon had become common by the fourth century. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Think more broadly: public executions. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:55, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

While I am sure there are specific exceptions… in general, spectating at sporting events has been non-gender segregated. Blueboar (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same for attendance at operas, theatres and concerts in the Western world, since at least the 18th Century and possibly earlier. It's commonly and casually reported in litterature from the period. Xuxl (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to you all for sharing interesting information. Let me also share with you that Greek Civilization of 7th century B.C. were one of first known ones to ban women from participating in public gatherings. ^[1]

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:14, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Page 2 Rayner-Canham, Geoffrey, and Rayner-Canham, Marelene F.. Women in Chemistry: Their Changing Roles from Alchemical Times to the Mid-twentieth Century. United States, Chemical Heritage Foundation, 1998

Submarine on submarine combat

Someone was telling me recently. Apparently only once in the history of warfare has a submarine engaged another submarine in underwater combat and destroyed the other sub. When was this? Does anyone know. Apparently it's something you often see in movies, but it only happened the one time in real life. 146.200.128.101 (talk) 10:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Sinking of U-864 (1945). Alansplodge (talk) 12:30, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From that article: "The sinking is the only incident where one submarine sank another in combat while both were at periscope depth." That is not the same as being the only underwater submarine sinking by a submarine full stop, ~~and is also a completely unsourced statement~~. Submarines go a lot deeper than periscope depth. I'm not sure you can ever definitively say it is the only case. Are the causes of all submarine losses in wartime known? EDIT:Should have read further, it is sourced further down the article. My point remains though, are records complete enough to make a definitive statement like that? Fgf10 (talk) 19:58, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-nuclear submarines spent a lot of time at or near the surface (when deeply submerged, they ran on limited battery power, and had to resurface to run diesel engines to recharge the batteries etc). AnonMoos (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, U-864 was using a submarine snorkel and running on diesel engines and because of a noisy fault, could be detected by HMS Venturer (P68). Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How could one submerged submarine attack another ? Torpedoes are for surface targets. Doug butler (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the Second World War, torpedoes could have their running depth pre-set before launch. The British set a spread of depths to increase the chances of hitting the U-boat, but there was apparently still a degree of luck involved.

Modern hunter-killer submarines are designed specifically to attack other submerged submarines with acoustic homing or wire-guided torpedoes like the Spearfish or Mark 48. Although there have been numerous wars in recent decades, conflicts between submarine-equipped nations have been rare and none have been used against another submarine in anger.

To address Fgf10's point, the circumstances allowing one submerged submarine to sink another in the 1940s were so exceptional that the chances of such a thing going unnoticed were vanishingly remote. Alansplodge (talk) 22:05, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory reporting in the United States

Taken from the article, "Mandatory reporting is also criticized because it jeopardizes the ability of people, including abused people, to seek medical treatment or maintain a therapeutic relationship, for fear of being reported." This statement is problematic. Why would the victims fear of being reported? The abusers are reported, not the victims. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:893D:DD23:D024:9A80 (talk) 18:19, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I fixed the wording, so it makes sense now. 172.220.8.114 (talk) 19:39, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The authorities who get such reports are not all angels. —Tamfang (talk) 04:51, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't reverted the IP because the section seems to lack sources anyway and was also poorly worded. (A better solution is to change it into something like "for fear of mandatory reporting" while keeping the abused people part intact, but with no sources it's a bit of a whatever situation.) But the suggestion victims aren't afraid of such reports is highly questionable, there are many possible concerns from victims from such reports.

For an unusual specific case see [3] but more generally see [4]. As the second source mentions, there are many possible consequences to victims of such reports, retaliation is the obvious one mentioned extensively in that source (whether on them or their children or as I explain later others like their pets), but for intimate partner violence it may include loss of their home, financial or even warped emotional support that comes from their abusers, embarrassment and shame that they feel from what happened becoming publicly known (this applies to everyone but it's probably heightened for the middle class and especially upper class and even more so if the people are well known enough that it may end up in the newspapers), risks they will lose their children, having to face a police and/or court system which they don't trust perhaps for good reason ([5] is a recent case in Canada which comes to mind).

Noting also that these concerns may not always be as severe as the victim imagines or the benefits for a report may outweighs such concerns, but if they don't think that way it's a moot point. The therapeutic relationship thing particularly comes to mind here since if such a victim was able and willing to seek such help, perhaps they will eventually come to the realisation they they do need to get out of the situation which may include reporting their abuser and their therapist may also be able to provide them with the contacts etc who will help. But this may never happen if they do not seek help because they fear doing so will lead to a report when they still they'd rather this does not happen. (For clarity, I'm not commenting on whether mandatory reporting is a good thing, simply saying it's perfectly plausible that such requirements will affect victims willingness to seek treatment in various ways so it's something that's fair to consider.)

For children you get similar things. See e.g. [6] and [7] Retaliation is one possible risk, but even with the abuse they may not want their parents to go to jail especially not if it means they may end up in the state care system which again perhaps experience will tell them is not necessarily a better experience. And even without jail, such things can tear a family apart, siblings and the other parent even when fully aware of what happened may blame the victim for what happened, and many may not be fully aware. Many child victims may have come to expect such abuse as normal and just like intimate partner violence victims, they may also have had bad experience with child welfare agencies, police and court systems. And note, even with restrictions on media reporting of abuse involving child victims, it may be difficult to hide what happened from the immediate community such as school. Remember also there are various degrees of abuse, but mandatory reporting can easily affect even lower levels of abuse. (Again to be clear, I'm not saying such abuse is acceptable or shouldn't be reported but I can understand why victims may be afraid of it being reported, especially if the child welfare system is particularly poor with how it handles such things.) I mean we just discussed the Sylvia Likens case above which while okay back in 1965, still shows that even in extreme case, reporting abuse is not simple for victims.

If you want to look into this more, rather than restricting this to mandatory reporting you can look into why victims do not report or leave their abusers since there will be substantial overlap. E.g. in NZ something which recently received a lot of attention is Pet Refuge [8] [9] [10], NZ first shelter for pets living in households affected by family violence. As mentioned in the sources, one reason some victims are afraid to leave their situation is for fear of the harm that will come to their pets when they leave as shelters and emergency accommodation don't generally cater for pets so they can't take them with them. While it didn't surprise me when I read about it, it's not something that had ever occurred to me before AFAIK. There's no reason to think abusers are going to leave pets alone if something happens due to mandatory reporting. To directly quote the second source

The women stressed that victims should be allowed to consider all the potential consequences of reporting before they allow their experience of violence to be reported to the police, because there are consequences for every decision that is made. It was clear that the participants had become adept at engaging in a cost benefit analysis for every decision concerning the violence and abuser. Unfortunately, the costs of reporting the violence often outweighed the benefits.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Reading that part of the article again, I was reminded I missed various form of family violence not covered by parents/caregivers abusing children or intimate partner violence e.g. children (used loosely i.e. including teenagers etc) abusing other children or children abusing their parents (whether non adult children abusing their caregivers or adult children potentially acting as caregivers abusing their parents). Many of the same concerns and more will apply to such situations. Nil Einne (talk) 12:07, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne What do you mean exactly by the Sylvia Likens case was okay back in 1965? Also, thanks for a very detailed explanation. It looks like this is a very complicated issue. However, not reporting at all is not a solution in my opinion. We need to reform the system (make it better) that handles reports and educate potential victims to be better informed in their decisions. Of course, I understand this is harder said than done. 2600:6C44:117F:879E:58C2:33C8:44B9:C38D (talk) 04:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's using "okay" in the sense of "admittedly", i.e. admittedly it was back in 1965 but is still relevant. --Viennese Waltz 08:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say what a certain Professor Stephen Smallbone (google him if you like) had to say about mandatory reporting. He was talking in respect to cases of child abuse and/or molestation, to quote [11]:

I see a lot of talk about mandatory reporting, for example. I do not have a particular problem with mandatory reporting except to say that mandatory reporting does not by itself lead to good outcomes. If you have mandatory reporting but the child has a terrible outcome every time abuse is reported, then there is no point.(emphasis mine).

To put it another way, mandatory reporting is only useful if the systems (and the persons employed in administering said "systems") which are supposed to respond to these reports, intervene in a way which leads to a good outcome for the victim(s). If this is not what is happening, the very raison d'etre of mandatory reporting "collapses", and people will often decline to report. Achieving this outcome (getting good outcomes for the victim(s)) is easier said than done, but it remains a critical aim. Eliyohub (talk) 13:19, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Page 2 Rayner-Canham, Geoffrey, and Rayner-Canham, Marelene F.. Women in Chemistry: Their Changing Roles from Alchemical Times to the Mid-twentieth Century. United States, Chemical Heritage Foundation, 1998

[1]