Humanities desk
< March 1	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 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.

March 2

Japanese atrocities in the People's Republic of China

Has anyone ever been judged (Japanese officer or politician, or something like that) for the terrible and unforgivable atrocities they did against China? .... example of atrocities Yoshio Kodaira --201.254.95.71 (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article Nanjing War Crimes Tribunal is quite short but affirms that people were put on trial for war crimes and links to other articles. This is not to minimise your question. Background is in Nanking massacre and Japanese war crimes with further links. Julia Rossi (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese war criminals were tried after the war in a large number of locations, with the most prominent of the trials held in Tokyo. The Tokyo trials included the most senior of the accused war criminals, under the name of the International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

A number of tribunals were convened in China for the trial of war criminals in China - mainly members of the occupying forces. The most prominent of these was the Nanjing trials, as Julia mentioned above.

By the way, there was no such thing as the People's Republic of China (founded 1949) at the time of the Japanese atrocities.--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TVO documnetary Saddam Hussein

I remember that on TVO, there was a documentary that talking about Saddam Hussein and his life and family. I remember one part that there was a part where they showing a naked lady taken away from her father because her father betrayed Saddam Hussein? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.53.55 (talk) 04:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, and what was your question? Do you want us to help you track down the documentary? -- JackofOz (talk) 06:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites

Can any user please list for me the five Chinese Funeral/Mourning Rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 10:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single "Chinese culture". Are you referring to the Chanyuan Qinggui funeral rites by chance? If this is a homework question, any answer you find here will likely differ from what is in your textbook. -- kainaw ™ 15:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to Huitian's monumental work Wu-li Tung-kao (Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites) on mourning rites which was written in about the middle of the 18th century. This is not a homework question - I am a pensioner! Simonschaim (talk) 17:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the same Qui Huitian mentioned in Ancestors: 900 Years in the Life of a Chinese Family? I came up pretty much empty with Google Books but Google Scholar had a bit more: see this pdf – on page 169 there is this snippet: "The Five Rites that Qin dealt with, in accordance with the categories of The Civil Service of Zhou: Major Zongbo, fell into the Rites of auspices, omens, army, guests, and of celebrations." They seem to be classification categories rather than specific individual ceremonies. I can't see a funeral link, though, so ask again if this still doesn't help. Best, WikiJedits (talk) 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all thank you for the infornation up to now. It is the Qui Huitian mentoned in the book "Ancestors". What I have in mind is the CEREMONIES (and not just classifications) in the same manner as given by T'ung-tsu Ch'u in his book "Law and Society in Traditional China" p.101 and David Buxbaum in his book "Family Law and Customary Law in Asia" p.45, with regards to the "Six Marriage Rites". What are the CEREMONIES for the five funeral/mourning rites? Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, his name is Qin Huitian, the book is most likely listed as "Wuli Tongkao" (五禮通考) in your local academic library, and his surname is Qin. Huitian is his given name.

the Wuli Tongkao, "Comprehensive Study of the Five Rites", refers to the five areas of rites in classical Chinese culture: the auspicious rites; the marital rites; the rites of fealty; the martial rites; and the rites of death (my translations).

What I'm calling "rites of death" covers not just funerary/mourning rites, but rather any inauspicious occasion requiring the attendance of the Prince. Major funerary rites are part of this chapter.

The easiest way to find out about the rites described by Qin is probably to read the original, (or to get someone to translate it for you.) This is a modern work and so the language is fairly accessible.

If you are simply looking for a list of funerary rites, these will likely differ from source to source. I've seen schemes which divide the rites into three sections, or five, or six, or seven...--PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 22:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Simonschaim (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding map coordinates for international borders, past and present

Ukraine and Slovakia share a border, though I don't know where to find info as to how this might have changed during or after WWII. In particular, there's a locale, Izky (alternative names: Iska, Iski, Isky, Iszka), coordinates 48°39'N/23°23'(or 23°22') E, that's variously cited as being in Slovakia and Ukraine. This map places it in today's Ukraine and reasonably near Slovakia, but what about the historical border? -- Deborahjay (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zakarpattia Oblast (Subcarpathian Rus) was transferred from Czechoslovakia to the Soviet Union in 1945. Your map shows the village as being within this area. Fribbler (talk) 11:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK Postal Service

Is it possible to go along to the local sorting office and ask them if a letter is there for me? I know that one is in the post, sent to me recently by someone in my area, so it should be in the sorting office. Is it possible to just go along and get it from there, rather than waiting for the postman to bring it to my house?--92.41.246.101 (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the UK postal service is as automated as the US postal service, you cannot. Humans don't have much to do with the mail service. So, they cannot go in and pull mail out of the automated system. -- kainaw ™ 15:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Once it reaches the local sorting office it will be delivered the same or next day, so there isn't much to be gained by collecting it in person. You can always try, though, the worst that can happen is they say "no". Make sure you take ID and proof of address (a utility bill, say). --Tango (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, incidentally, that the correct name is the Royal Mail, not the "UK postal service". Malcolm XIV (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"UK postal service" is a description, not a name. --Tango (talk) 20:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being even more pedantic, then there are other commercial UK postal services in addition to the Royal Mail, although I cannot think of any names. 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assassinations

How many internationally recognized heads of state have been assassinated in the past 200 years? I know the US has lost 4 presidents in that manner, but what about other countries? I presume you will need me to define the question better, but am not sure how exactly.65.167.146.130 (talk) 17:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of assassinated persons is probably a good place to start counting. - Eron^Talk 17:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and by my quick review, it shows 138 people who could arguably be considered heads of state who were assassinated worldwide since 1800. I included Presidents, Prime Ministers, and Kings, plus the odd Emir, Emperor, Tsar, etc. I did not include any former leaders assassinated after their term, but I did count a couple of Presidents-Elect. - Eron^Talk 18:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 65.167.146.130 (talk) 19:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone holding political office is murdered for purely private reasons – say, by a jilted lover – is that an "assassination"? —Tamfang (talk) 00:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our article states that assassination is the targeted killing of a public figure. I think that it is the fact that the public figure is killed for being a public figure that makes it an assassination. The motives may be ideological or psychological, but they are intimately connected to the public face of the figure. The murder of a king, say, for purely personal reasons could arguably have taken place - for those same personal reasons - even if the king were a completely private individual. So I'd have to say no, that wouldn't be an assassination. - Eron^Talk 01:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

are there any publically evil ("flamboyantly evil") people out there?

There have been a lot of public, powerful people past and present who are villains at least in current western opinion. But none of them go out and SAY that they are evil, that their goals are evil (a la Dr. Evil of Austin Powers, who does make such statements). Are there ANY powerful evil people who are "out of the evil closet" and make no secret of the fact that their goals are sinister and that they are out to do EVIL?? I mean there are thousands or tens of thousands of large-scale philanthropists dedicating their lives and bank accounts to charitable goals, and making no secret of it -- is there (or has there ever been) even ONE evil person doing the opposite (dedicating their lives to doing evil) and frankly letting the world know? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, people rarely believe they are doing evil even when they are doing it. One could safely argue that the actions of Hitler, Pol Pot, or Stalin, to pick just three, were evil - but I doubt that any one of them would agree. They had their own justifications and reasons, however twisted or misguided, and they believed that what they did was for some greater good.

I think to find naked, self-declared evil you need to look a little further down the food chain. I would expect that several of these folks probably quite admitted quite cheerfully that they were being evil. - Eron^Talk 19:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know about Hitler through Saddam Hussein, and I also know about serial killers. The former doesn't answer my question because they were not publically evil, and the latter don't fit because they are not "public, powerful people". I am looking for a single public, powerful person (past or present) who publically behaved like Dr. Evil does: avowing, and following through, on admittedly evil intentions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anyone who fits that description. I can't imagine that any existed, outside of comic books and James Bond movies. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lot depends on your definition of evil. I'd suggest Aleister Crowley as someone who consciously tried to do the opposite of "good". --TammyMoet (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about conscious or not, I'm talking about publically avowed or not. There are memoirs that confess to pangs of conscience after the fact, but I'm really looking for Dr. Evil type public statements from someone powerful WHILE they are doing the evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.230.68.157 (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, evil doesn't have much depth. Hence cartoons villains are so ridiculous—instead of, say, taking that stolen oil tanker and selling it for cash, they want to beach it on the rocks to kill the seagulls. That's not just evil—it's dumb. Real evil is, as Arendt argued, banal—it is the absence of good, not a force opposed to it. Uday Hussein, for example, seems to have lacked even the semblance of good intentions (one can argue that Saddam, for all his deficits, at least thought he was achieving some sort of Pan-Arabic strength), but did he espouse evil? No. He espoused nothing. He was a creature of greed, excess, and cruelty. He had no ideology from what I can tell. He was certainly not doing what he did as part of an organized plan.

I suspect the only place you'd find an elaborate justification of "evil" per se is in the work of nutcases—serial killers and the like. Most people don't think about themselves in those terms, for fairly obvious psychological reasons. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried finding stuff on Victor Bout? Well-known to governments and his own trading circles, now relatively public with a documentary showing his moves. He'd fit ~~your~~ the question about returns on evil as well. Julia Rossi (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

did you even read my question? the wikipedia article you just linked says "Viktor Bout has always professed his innocence, saying he is just a businessman. He was interviewed by Peter Landesman for the Süddeutsche Zeitung (24 October 2003).[25] He also appeared on Moscow radio station Ekho Moskvy, saying "I have never supplied anything to or had contacts with the Taliban or al-Qaeda."". A far cry from "I do what I do because it is evil, and I like being evil" which is the kind of thing I'm looking for... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.181.144.125 (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to be rude. People are trying to help you here. As it appears that the simple answer to your question is "No," we are trying to find some answers that come close to what you want, or that explain why the answer is no. - Eron^Talk 23:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you may have found a niche. You should try to become the first public figure celebrated for being evil, but not committing any crimes. This would be a very challenging tasks, but you would probably be rewarded with fame, done correctly. NByz (talk) 00:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of these guys may have beaten our OP to the punch on that one. - Eron^Talk 00:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who said it first but someone once told me that no man ever intentionally does evil. It has stuck with me ever since. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rush Limbaugh. DOR (HK) (talk) 05:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

About reading your question – I did, but decided to roll this one in anyway because it's got a theme with the other "evil" threads. If that spoiled your question thread, apologies. So as someone answered above, No. Mostly "evil" doers would like the rest of the world to think they're just innocent everyday businessmen, or sincere every day dictators. Btw, these are good questions – very stimulating. Julia Rossi (talk) 06:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, you didn't ruin my question thread - sorry if I barked at you! :) However in the conclusion of every single respondent above it seems you should write Without exception "evil" doers would like the rest of the world to think they're just innocent everyday businessmen, or sincere every day dictators --85.181.149.76 (talk) 09:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Well, don't know if Aleister Crowley qualifies or whether he was over acting but as the poster says above, he was flamboyant about it (being the Great Beast, Satan et al). And fictional though he is, I've got a soft spot for Scarface saying thanks to him, everyone could say, there goes the bad guy. Cheers, Julia Rossi (talk) 10:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ AQuestforknowledge, Charles Manson might be an exception. Julia Rossi (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be interesting to address the issue of why nobody powerful will publicly state that their goals are evil. I suspect that the reason is that they wouldn't be able to stay powerful, if they did. We tend to think that people in power can remain there through violence, intimidation, and wealth, but they really do always need an inner circle of loyal people they can trust. If the inner circle is afraid they will be killed at any time, they are likely to decide they would do better to kill their leader than follow him. It always bothers me when I see a movie featuring an evil criminal kingpin, who kills his own people at random. If he did that, he'd find a knife in his back in short order. StuRat (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can dream on, StuRat, but it's historic that wicked rulers get paranoid and start picking off their own people/loyal henchmen and do not die soon enough themselves. Julia Rossi (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if they kill members of their inner circle who really have betrayed them, but leave the rest alone, that could actually help them to maintain power. However, in too many movies they just kill members of their inner circle at random, for fun. This would not inspire loyalty, and anyone who behaved that way wouldn't last long. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Joseph Stalin, Adolph Hitler, and Pol Pot all lasted long enough. The Night of the Long Knives wasn't exactly a big Nazi group hug, though it pales in comparison to the purges of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Hollywood rarely gets it right, but still, a leader's ability to kill their own people depends entirely on the political and social climate within the leadership. It probably has a lot to do with ideology and government structure; oddly enough, a large, powerful bureaucracy seems to do more to secure the future of a dictator than does wealth, influence, or control over the military. Nineteen Eighty-Four and Brazil spring to mind. --Fullobeans (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking just at the case of Hitler, I don't believe he just randomly killed people in his inner circle. He did kill rivals (like Ernst Röhm) or those who he thought betrayed him (like Erwin Rommel), but not those who he thought were loyal to him. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caligula probably gets pretty close. He was certainly flamboyant and he did some genuinely nasty things, often for no good reason124.186.86.247 (talk) 00:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth mentioning that Dr Evil's proclamation that he is evil is part of satire. Realistically though, people have trouble reconciling their actions if they know them to be evil, in other words, evil people would have trouble being evil if they knew that they were being evil. However, their is usually a motive involved such as greed, power, etc and the motive certainly wouldn't be "to be evil". But let us get into some of those exceptions where the motive would really be "to be evil". There are some satanists who commit acts to be evil, but strictly speaking they are making sacrifices or are trying to behave as "uninhibited man" which is part of satanic philosophy. Another exception are certain psychotics and sociopaths -- for example serial killers; they commit their acts knowing that they are "evil" with little motive, although once again you could claim their motive is power, dominance, anger, or revenge (acted out against someone else). Finally, the definition of evil comes into play here strongly: what a person perceives as evil. One could for example believe that killing animals is evil, and yet they could do openly and proudly do so (compare this to someone that believes killing humans is evil and proudly does so). An evil person that is flamboyantly evil I think belongs in satire like Dr Evil. Rfwoolf (talk) 01:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned President Mugabe yet. Or Mafia bosses or personnel. 78.146.195.92 (talk) 01:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that the OP is using the word "public" not to mean "serving in public office" but "openly declaring themselves". If I've understood it correctly then the actual question, contained in the last sentence, leaves the field open to Crowley, et.al. In that vein, Blackbeard seemed to be pretty open about his approach to life. He stole money, cargo and ships, and although there is no proof that he personally killed anyone he certainly commanded his men to take actions that resulted in the deaths of innocent people. Our article states "He deliberately cultivated his barbaric reputation..." It seems he matches the criteria of deliberately doing evil and frankly letting the world know. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 01:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a Nazi person

Does anyone know who this person is? http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/4696/67gr5.jpg --Emyn ned (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it comes from the Google LIFE photo archive so you could search on there for Nazis. --140.247.253.176 (talk) 20:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you assuming he's a Nazi? Unless there's some clue in the uniform, he could just as easily be a regular non-political conscript. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a regular Wehrmacht officer (i.e. regular German army) and NOT part of the SA or SS or any other Nazi party paramilitary organization. My guess is that this is a Oberstleutnant (Lieutenant Colonel) of some sort. Compare to this google search: [1] The facepunch.com link claims its a Obersturmbannführer, but that was an SA rank, and the equivalent to a Wehrmacht Oberstleutnant. This page shows another Oberstleutnant, and the uniform matches very closely. Note the 3 bars on the collar insignia, which I believe is the rank indicator, and the stripe at the second button, the Eagle over the breast pocket, etc. etc. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "original" at Google is here, and here is another photograph of the same officer. Google says the photos were taken in 1942 but the man is "unidentified." --Cam (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always figured that stripey ribbon signified an Iron Cross. Anybody know for sure? I second the opinion that this guy is a boring old Wehrmacht officer; the collar tabs are the giveaway (compare). The dizzying array of WWII-era shoulder boards and waffenfarbe makes it hard to tell what the fellow's particular position was, but odds are he was nobody special, and, as Clarityfiend says, may not have been a Nazi at all. If you believe Wikipedia, the German army was relatively apolitical and even skeptical of Nazism, unlike other branches of the military. What struck me about this photo, incidentally, is the shirt the guy is wearing under his tunic. It looks non-regulation, to say the least, and I can't recall ever seeing a shirt collar sticking out so prominently. --Fullobeans (talk) 08:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The shirt also struck me - clearly not military issue - and I wondered if it didn't mean that the person pictured was playing "dress up" in someone else's uniform. - Nunh-huh 08:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The collar tabs identify him as regular army (Heer, i.e. not navy or air force). The background of the collar tab would identifies which command (which part) of the Heer he would have been in, but I can't tell what color they are (my monitor is lousy too). Armor if dark green, medical if dark blue, black if engineers. The ribbon probably indicates Iron Cross Second Class. The one stud on the shoulder board indicates Feldwebel, i.e. the third lowest NCO rank (3 Stripe NCO := US E-6). As for his field cap,.. the shape of the insignia's patch, its color and the cockade all mean something too. Dunno what though. -- Fullstop (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than the Google LIFE images archives cited above, I'd suggest you contact the archives of Life (magazine) itself, possibly through its LIFE.com official website. Otherwise, are we sure this image isn't a photoshopped fabrication? -- Deborahjay (talk) 06:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structuralist/intentionalist Holocaust sources

Where can I find, online, extracts from works by structuralist and intentionalist authors which show their opinions on the Holocaust? Thanks, --AdamSommerton (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not sufficient information in the article you have linked, then perhaps clicking on the names shown as supportive of each perspective will give you on-line sources. You might also consider googling each of the names to find materials beyond WP. // BL \\ (talk) 22:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bookcases in Jewish cemetery

The article on the Austrian town Krems an der Donau contains a photo of some bookcases in a Jewish cemetery there. The photo is not captioned, unfortunately (I think it should be). But the bookcases look a bit odd stuck there in the middle of a cemetery like that. Is this a common sight in Jewish cemeteries? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a caption. It is artwork by Clegg & Guttmann installed in 2004. Here is further information in German. --Cam (talk) 04:10, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to [2], this seems to be an art installation. In November 2000 the gravestone of Rabbi Nehemia bar Jakob, who died 11 December 1380, was found in exterior front of Piaristenkirche in Krems/Stein, restored, and moved to his final resting place in the cemetery of Krems. A contest was held for ideas on how to use the empty space left behind in the Piaristenkirche. The winners were the artists Clegg & Guttmann, who wanted to use the space to continue their 1991 project called “Open Public Library”.

Clegg & Guttmann, however, could not obtain the required permissions, and so did not erect the library in the Piaristenkirche, but rather in the Jewish cemetery of Krems. "The artists created a bookcase in size and shape of a gravestone with glass doors. It holds a carefully chosen collection of books, which is devoted to the Jewish philosophy and history of death. The choice consists of German, English and Hebrew texts." The work is now less a memorial for a missing gravestone and more a memorial for the formerly flourishing Jewish community of Krems. Visitors are invited to increase the library with books related to the subject. -- Nunh-huh 04:14, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia has an article on the cemetery, with information about the art. Alas, it is in German too difficult this Englishman for. w:de:Jüdischer Friedhof Krems. DuncanHill (talk) 13:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By contrast, see the Judenplatz Holocaust Memorial in Vienna, a work by Rachel Whiteread. It consists of an inside-out library, and, while not in a cemetary, cannot but be linked with the death and absence of Jews in that city. BrainyBabe (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dacians, Getae, Venadae, Galatians

Danes and Goths in Latin? Is it possible that due to the fluidity of Germania as meaning many different things, that our modern version of who these peoples are, is not exactly black and white? Those peoples are identified as the same by medieval academics. The Goths, like the Getae, lived along the Greek frontier as far as the Ukraine (where the Swedish Rus later lived) before moving into the western part of Rome and generally taking over former Celtic spheres of influence. I assume the Danes and Dacians weren't extricated from one another until modern (18th-19th century times). The Venadae seem like a mix-up with the Finns. If you think I'm crazy to even ask, then explain Galatia to me as if it has no relation to Gaul. The French made Crusader states and all Western Europeans are called Franks because of this. Who says the French were not retracing Galatian steps? I assume you are going to merely state that all of those frontier peoples, barbarians, are simply too obscure to know for sure. I'll accept that answer and drop the question, if it's what you have. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the connection between France and Gaul is that its the same plot of land, but the French are not really descendents of the Gauls. There were probably some descendents of the Gauls living in just about any part of France at any time, but the French who went on the Crusades were most likely descendents of Romans and Germanic Franks which migrated to the area from other parts of Europe some 500-800 years prior to the Crusades.

You must remember that the modern concept of nation-state which means a people AND government AND plot of land AND language all rolled into one is really only a concept which has existed for MAYBE 300-400 years at the outside, and really only got nailed down in the 19th and early 20th century. Prior to the Dark ages, most of the major groups of Europe had no definitive homeland; they were semi-nomadic or pastoralist. The broad groups we speak of (Germanic groups, Celtic/Gaulish groups, Slavic groups, "Scythians", etc.) weren't really tied to one area. We have a sense that the Germanic people came from the Denmark-Norway-Sweeden area, and that the Celts maybe came from the Halstatt culture of the Alps, however these people ranged and moved widely across Europe and the Mediteranean world throughout history. For the Celtic peoples, we have such far flung areas as Galatia in Anatolia and Galicia in Iberia. For the Germans we have Vandals in North Africa and Goths as far as northeastern Black Sea area. In fact, if we plot the movements of the Germanic and Celtic peoples over, say, the 1000 year period from 500 BC to 500 AD it would probably be hard to find a plot of land from Portugal to the Caucasus, or from Denmark to Libya, which had NOT served as a homeland, at different times, for BOTH Germanic and Celtic peoples.

There's really no evidence, either, that the 11th century French were particularly aware of this, and their motivation for taking on the Crusades wasn't to reclaim some "Gaulish" homeland in Galatia, it was a combination of religious duty to reclaim the Holy Land from the Saracens, and of personal conquest.

As far as the connection between the Danes and the Dacians/Getae, I am not sure there is any. As far as I know, the Dacians were a native Thracian people who had no known connection to the Germanic Danes, and any similarity in their names is purely coincidental. Their closest relatives are probably the Phrygian peoples of Anatolia, and those Phrygians, despite at some point populating an area that at a different time was populated by the Galatians, have no commonality with them either.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a map of 323 BC, and according to accepted chronologies, the Goths didn't move into the general Balkans-Ukraine area until about five centuries later. In 323 BC., the central Europe, northern Balkans, and Ukraine area was probably dominated by Celts, Illyrians, Scythians, and "Thraco-Phrygians" -- and not by either Slavs or Germanics. The Galatians were indeed Celts, who famously broke into Anatolia around 278 B.C. Not sure about "Venedae", but Veneti was an early word sometimes used by Romans to refer to Slavs (but probably not in 323 B.C.). AnonMoos (talk) 00:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it significant that the Goths and Rus followed the same orientation? It's almost that Germania (includes Finns acc. to Tacitus) and Scythia are the respective Latin and Greek name for the same mishmash, from different positions to judge? Obviously, many of the other peoples, especially those of Anatolia and Gaul, have a much more intimate connection to the Mediterranean world and its "in-crowd", so they are easier to understand. You know, I went to Oktoberfest this past year and they had a mix of Germanic and Slavic folk dances and music, going as far east as those -istan countries of Central Asia, like the Cossacks and Tajiks. I was stunned, but perhaps can't really be this estranged from knowing that the Germanic and Scythic peoples and their descendants have closer ties with each other than each might have separately with the Mediterranean world which they absorbed in the Middle Ages. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 01:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are confusing the Rus, which were a Germanic people, with the Russians, who are a Slavic people. The land the Rus settled on became known as Russia, and then when the Slavs later moved in, they became Russians though they had no relation to the prior settlers. And the Finns are definately not Germanic in any way. They are a Uralic peoples who came from the same part of North-Central Asia from whence the Magyars and Samoyed peoples came. Tacitus may have assumed they were Germanic because they were found in his time intermingled in some of the areas where Germanic peoples were, but as I noted above with the Celts and the Germans, there were many unrelated groups of people marching all accross Eurasia for many hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Certainly there was contact and intermingling between all of these groups, as well as other Central Asian groups which moved into Europe or visa-versa (see Bulgars, Avars, Cimerians, Scythians, Sarmatians). Its not like these cultures remained isolated from each other while trapsing over each others land. There is, of course, some assimilation to happen; else how do the Franks, a Germanic people, end up speaking a Latin-based language or the Bulgars, a Turkic group from central asia, end up speaking a Slavic language. So yes, I would not be surprised to find the sort of cross-cultural connections you describe; however when you get down to the roots of these cultures, they often come from very different places, and cross-cultural exchanges are different from cultural descent. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really trying to get a sense of the similarity in the names and whether these are not really two different peoples, but two different versions of the same peoples. 68.231.163.38 (talk) 05:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: the Slavs were already there when the Rus arrived. The Slavs supposedly asked them to come intervene in some conflict, and they ended up with Rus overlords until the Rus were completely Slavicized a few centuries later. (Or, perhaps, the Rus were Slavs all along, depending on which side of the debate you are on. We have an article about this, naturally, see Rus' (people).) Secondly, the crusaders were called "Franks" because they mostly came from France, but also because they associated themselves with the more heroic age of the actual Franks, especially Charlemagne, who was thought to have had some interest (military or humanitarian) in Jerusalem. The leaders of the crusade were all descended from Charlemagne, of course. Sometimes chroniclers also used ancient geographic and ethnographic terms for contemporary people and places; thus in the First Crusade, "Franks", "Teutons", and "Alemanni" travelled through "Pannonia" and "Illyria" on their way to "Babylon". I don't know if this helps answer the question, but I wanted to clarify some of Jayron's answers. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]