Humanities desk
< October 2	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 4 >

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.

October 3

English Conquests

How come it was so easy for the English to conquer all the other Celtic people of the British Isles save the Scots? Why didn't any other continental power seize the opportunity in justifying an attack to aid any of these nations? Was it because most Europeans viewed the Celts as a lesser people and barbarians even though they converted to Christianity long before they did? When I say Europeans, I'm referring to the Germanic people that rule much of Europe in the Middle Ages.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't easy, and it took hundreds of years. They never really conquered Wales or Ireland either (or even Cornwall, at least in the sense that they never totally displaced the Celtic population as they did in the rest of the bit that became England). I'm not sure I understand your second question, but the Celts were generally not considered barbarians, since it was usually them who went around converting the barbarians elsewhere in Europe... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The conquest of Wales, Ireland and part of Scotland might be better described as Norman expansionism, The English didn't have a lot of say in anything after the Battle of Hastings. Various branches of the Norman aristocracy carved out an empire that extended as far as Italy. Alansplodge (talk) 08:27, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jutes, Saxons, Danes and Normans invaded and settled too.
Sleigh (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were no great powers in Europe in the 12th Century except the Byzantine Empire who had their work cut-out at the time. France tried to help the Scots (see the Auld Alliance) but they had plenty of other distractions. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A major fact is that a divided nation is easier to beat and to conquer than a united one. Neither Wales nor Ireland had a central government with a king. Wales seems to have several feuding rulers (the single exception seems to have been the rule of Gruffydd ap Llywelyn) who always conspired and fought each other. The Normans/English simply took advantage of this advantageous situation (Divide and rule). Same goes for Ireland, while Scotland, having a king and a central government, proved a harder target. Flamarande (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're talking about that many centuries after the original Anglo-Saxon arrival, then no one much cared what was happening to the Celts anymore; the Pope apparently thought it was a great idea for the Normans to conquer Ireland (although he was English, after all). By then most of Europe was crusading against Muslims and pagans, or they were involved in the war between the Papacy and the Holy Roman Empire. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, France did attempt to assist the Scots and considered assisting the Irish. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 15:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't just consider it. Fribbler (talk) 15:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It basically comes down to economics. The Celtic regions were the poorest as far as creating food was concerned, so they had to devote almost their full resources to keeping people fed, and were not able to outfit and maintain large armies. As for other countries invading to support them, that sort of thing never happened before the 20th century. Nations invariably acted to benefit themselves, not to support others. Looie496 (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Armies launched against another country as support for a third country has occurred countless times in history, if those countries had a mutual defence treaty. Not unlike similar campaigns in the 20th century. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that happened a lot. A nation may act invariably to benefit itself, but often it is in one country's best interest to protect another country from the attacks of a third. Anyway, I also wanted to point out that the 13th or 14th century, assuming that is the high point of the Middle Ages, was almost as far away as the initial Anglo-Saxon conquests as we ourselves are from the 13th century. The Anglo-Saxons existed in a semi-mythical almost prehistorical past, as far as most medieval people were concerned. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It would be the perfect justification for a nation to attack another nation, plus you get the perfect chance to attack your enemy from behind as they are trying to attack another nation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan but it didn't work out for Scotland at the Battle of Flodden. Strangely the Scottish Nationalists don't bang on about that one. Alansplodge (talk) 10:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Differences between performances of the same opera

Tonight, I attended a performance of Il barbiere di Siviglia by the Jacobs School of Music; while I own and have listened to recordings of many operas, I've never before seen one live, so I'm curious — besides the singers themselves, what differences could I expect to see between two different performances by two different opera companies? For example, in this performance, Don Alonso was blind; is he always blind, or could that be an interpretation by tonight's director? Please understand that the first question refers to any and all opera, not just Barbiere. Nyttend (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Opera performances by different companies resemble each other most when you put the CDs on. When you see them -- everything is different. The entire artistic conception of the staging, who goes where, what props, the costumes, the colors, -- and whether the staging will even be approximately like the traditional view of the historic or mythic time represented in the opera -- will change from director to director. That's one of the things that's so fun about it. I saw a brilliant performance of the Barber of Seville earlier this year in Los Angeles in which the first half was completely in black and white; and the second half gradually added color, in costumes, sets, until by the finale the stage was flooded in all the colors of the spectrum, a feast for the eyes and ears both. Usually, but not always, if the specific stage direction says that a character is blind, the director will honor it, but they may not. Antandrus (talk) 04:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It could be interpretation, or an attempt to appeal to the audience, or simply a matter of money and other limited resources. Some operas are just too big for even the largest opera houses (and their present-day audiences), so you see dozens of different scaled-down, simplified, shortened versions. Some began mutating from the moment they were first presented (Don Carlos). On the other end there are compact operas like Pagliacci that don't need this kind of surgery. East of Borschov 08:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's much like different productions of the same play. You can see Hamlet in period costume or in modern dress, in luxuriously or sparsely decorated stages, the full 5-hour original or some shorter version, and so on. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did the trains really run on time?

A cliche about Fascist states was that the trains ran on time. Did they? Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general better than they were run in non-fascist states?

The Fascists ran WW2 badly - they made bad decisions, such as opening up two fronts, wasting human talent and having resources diverted to pursue genocide, and their disproportionate punishments, eg. shooting people for disloyalty, often alienated the local populations. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 13:48, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The trains running on time claim was Italy under Mussolini in the 1920s, while opening two fronts was Germany under Hitler in June 1941, so I'm not sure that there would be any close connection between the two... Here's one relevant URL (not by professional historians): [1] -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both fascists, it hardly needs to be said. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:08, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But frankly that's not even totally true. Italian Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all. They were both totalitarian, to be sure. But they differed in their ideologies, styles of governance, and economic policies considerably. And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all. One is about internal organization, another is taking calculated bets on international outcomes. They are really apples and oranges. Having a good metro system doesn't make you good at war; being good at war doesn't make you have a good metro system. --Mr.98 (talk) 14:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"And making the trains run on time, versus being successful in war, are not the same thing at all." Nobody has claimed they are. The second sentance in the Nazism article confirms that they were fascists, as I think 99.9% of people would agree. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It says it was a "unique variety of fascism," which doesn't contradict at all the point I was trying to make. The fact that 99.9% people don't know the difference between Italian Fascism, Nazism, or Stalinism doesn't make them all the same thing. And if you aren't trying to make a comparison with running WWII and running the trains, I'm a bit befuddled as to the point of the second paragraph of your question! --Mr.98 (talk) 15:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hair splitting as a kind of 'divide and conquer' sophistry to save face. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of common misconceptions lists the trains thing, although it is incompletely sourced. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:00, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Italians didn't choose a second front in Italy; the allies invaded Sicily and then mainland Italy; the fascist government of Italy lasted only a fortnight after the latter invasion began. Prior to that, Italy was wilfully employed in campaigns in Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Balkans - see Military history of Italy during World War II. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 14:14, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Germans chose to invade Russia as far as I am aware, with Britain still fighting, the second front I was referring to. 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Mussolini made trains run on time" - this has been clearly listed among our "List of Popular Misconceptions" article on Wikipedia. Jon Ascton (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should re-state the main question: Was there any truth in the Fascists claim that they ran things in general (including railways, wars, economies, etc) better than they were run in non-fascist states? In other words is there any evidence that fascists states were better run than other kinds of states such as capitalist states, communist states, etc? 92.24.186.80 (talk) 15:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As to the trains, see the Snopes link pasted above, which gives a pretty plausible answer with a reasonable set of sources. (Basic answer: not really.) In any case, it's hard to make a lot of judgments on this, given the limited sample size (a handful of "Fascist" countries, a limited time scale, not being able to re-run the same situation with a non-Fascist country and see what happens differently, the fact that the democracies were in a particularly bad economic spot during most of the time in question which might make them a bad comparison, etc.). As for wars, the "Fascist" countries did a good job when it came to overpowering nearby countries that weren't really expecting them to attack. They weren't so good at winning the long war, though. Whether that is because they were "Fascist" or not is not clear. (I don't think the "democracies" won because they were democratic. In fact, the major cause for the defeat of the Axis powers was not a democracy at all, but Communist Russia.)

I think the best broad generalization about totalitarian states in general is that they probably were able to make certain categories of decisions quicker and earlier than states that require lots of deliberation or have lots of types of checks and appeal opportunities in the system. So for example, the Nazis were able to pass really, really sweeping public health measures (some of which we today find pretty horrific, to be sure) in a matter of months after getting into power, the sorts of things that would have been totally derailed and impossible to get through in a place like the United States, where the entrenched interests would have been very powerful and the system of passing laws is purposefully slow and convoluted. That's not necessarily a good thing — it meant that a lot of bad policies were passed without any oversight along with maybe a handful of ones that we might consider reasonable from today's perspective. They got to forego a lot of "politics as usual" that is characteristic of Western democracies, but that's again not necessarily a good thing.

I think on the whole the evidence is probably not very strong at all that Fascist states did much of anything decidedly "better" than non-Fascist states, but on the other hand, it really depends on what you mean by "better". If remobilizing, starting wars, and systematically pillaging and killing off various minority groups is "better", then they do that better than democratic states, to be sure. Compare, for example, the US's attempts at compulsory sterilization of the mentally ill to the Nazis'. In the US, with its complicated federal/state system, its oversight, its legal challenges, over the course of decades it only sterilized some 60,000 people against their will. The Nazis did something like 400,000 over the course of one decade. They did that "better". But that's not really a very good thing from a modern perspective. --Mr.98 (talk) 15:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You claimed above that the Nazis were not fascists. Make your mind up. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr.98 never said any such thing. He said that German Naziism and Italian Fascism were two different things. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quote: "Fascism and Nazism were not the same thing at all." 92.24.189.222 (talk) 23:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you want a strict definition, then you are told that there isn't one, then "fascism" and "Nazi" are used anyway, as you yourself use them, so that the answers will be understandable, and you accuse people of being dishonest. What is the point of this question? You are just wasting everyone's time. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:28, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OP never asked for a "strict definition", and never accused people of being dishonest. I've noticed now that when a question is asked, seldom do you get a straight answer, but instead a lot of quibbling and going off on a tangent. 92.29.114.118 (talk) 20:22, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second-Year CEGEP or Freshman University

Hello. I come from Ontario and graduated from high school. I'm studying in Quebec and it's my first time in university. Am I eligible to apply for second-year CEGEP instead of university to save on tuition? (By completing CEGEP, my four-year degree would take three years.) Do I sacrifice the quality of my education by doing so? Thanks in advance. --Mayfare (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are specifically eligible, but think of it as sort of equivalent to going to a college instead of a university in Ontario. The quality of education is probably not worse (and maybe it's actually better), but it will be less prestigious. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of -woods

I'm looking for a list of all the cinematic -woods in the world. There is this nice list here but it doesn't mention Nollywood (it mentions Nigerian cinema but I want to know all the -woods) so I'm not sure if it's complete. Jasonberger (talk) 17:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All? Don't forget So-Sollywood in Shanghai.--Wetman (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is always Pinewood as well, here in England. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmington, North Carolina is sometimes refered to as "Hollywood East" due to the presence of EUE/Screen Gems studios, which claims to be the largest in the U.S. outside of Hollywood. --Jayron32 23:45, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's also HollyŁódź in Poland (Łódź is pronounced more or less like "woodge"). — Kpalion^(talk) 07:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of so many -woods must be a cause for concern, over which many governments will surely be burning the midnight oil. There must be a handy name for this major international crisis. I know: Woodgate. :) -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 18:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard of Tollywood referring both to Tamil and Telugu cinema (Tamil cinema can also be called Kollywood, after Kolkata). Gollywood can refer to Gujarati or Ghanaian cinema. Dollywood is Dolly Parton's themepark. Pollywood/Lollywood is Pakistani (from Lahore). Mollywood is Malayalam cinema or Mormon cinema. Sollywood is South African. Wollywood appears to have an adult-theatre meaning which I'm not willing to investigate further. Zollywood refers, apparently, to Zimbabwe. Chollywood is Chinese, but doesn't seem to have currency. I suspect that a number of these are only in restricted use, being understood only from context. But they all turned up from searching for different -ollywoods. Steewi (talk) 04:14, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses I look forward to exploring these -woods Jasonberger (talk) 12:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WW II Hugarian History

To your knowledge was there a group of party named either Romai II or Rome II or Roman II. I read about them in a WW II memoire and would like to know if anyone has any details about such an organization.

please send your response or link to <email redacted> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubscher (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed your email address to deter spammers; as it said when you posted your query, email addresses should not be posted here and any replies will be made here, not by off-wiki means. I also removed your first, duplicate posting of this query, which you made while signed out. If you are concerned that your IP address has been linked to your account name because of this, and you wish to have that edit hidden from public view, you can request this at WP:OVERSIGHT. Ka renjc 20:57, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Hungary during World War II does not mention any such group. Do you have any context on the group? Like, were they a resistance group, a pro-Nazi group, a Hungarian-Nationalist group, Political Party? Any additional information you know could help us find more about them. --Jayron32 23:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the obvious suggestion is the Roma, also known as Romani, Romany, or Gypsies. They were the subject of Nazi genocide in the same way as the Jews, and there were certainly some in Hungary, although more next door in Romania. Looie496 (talk) 01:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passport when out of State

I'm a college student attending college in Washington D.C. I'm originally from New York. I wanted to know whether or not I could get a US passport while I'm attending college. I would like to travel/study abroad next year and it would be nice to have the passport before then. 147.9.230.223 (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. You don't need to have specific plans to travel in order to get a passport. Looie496 (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Many people here in Vermont have passports just to make getting into/out of Canada easier, though they had no specific plans when they were getting the document. Dismas|^(talk) 18:44, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking because you are not originally in your state of origin or permanent address (which I gather from the heading), that doesn't matter at all. Your passport doesn't say where you live on it (unlike a driver's license), so it's not like putting your dorm address (or whatever) will make a difference in the long run, just where they will mail it when it is done. Here are the requirements and the forms. I took my forms to my local post office and got it all squared away not long ago. You just need to have the right forms of identification and proof of citizenship (e.g. a state driver's license or ID plus a Social Security Card or birth certificate), along with the paperwork. It takes a few weeks to process if you aren't paying extra for rush handling, so the sooner the better. Large post offices (e.g. not just "annexes") often have passport handling capabilities and cameras for the photos. If you go here and put in your zip code and select "passport application services" in the box, it'll show you which post offices nearby can handle the application (you have to do it in person the first time, since they need to check your ID documentation). Again, it's not like a driver's license where you have to go to a local DMV and etc. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown object

Tell me and we'll all know......
This object was found on a Lake Michigan beach years ago, near a lighthouse. The lighthouse does not have a clue what it is. It may belong to the lighthouse, or it may be just an object that fell off a boat, or something just washed up on shore. It is the size of about 8 inches across at the top points. It is lite and made of a metal, perhaps aluminum. Perhaps a part of a breast plate of a children's costume. No writing on the back side to furnish a clue of age. It looks like it may have been in the water for a long time before it finally washed ashore on the beach at the lighthouse. Any guesses?--Doug Coldwell ^talk 19:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it mostly flat? The ridges may be to help with grip while stepping on it. The stars suggest something where decoration matters. My wild guess would be the step of a coin in the slot seaside telescope. Does it have any holes in it for attaching it to something? Do you have a picture from another angle? Might be a Fire dog or Andiron. 92.24.189.222 (talk) 21:28, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think to take other side and back pictures. It is several miles from me, so sometime in the future I'll get several pictures and ask question again (if not solved meanwhile). Does NOT have any holes in it (that I remember, and I took picture today). Something related to a seaside telescope makes sense as it is in a tourist town where there are modern coin operated telescopes. Perhaps it is off an older coin telescope. It does have what appears to be designs where it would be "attached" to something. You might be on to something here. Yes, it is mostly flat with a slight curve to the item, like it wraps onto something. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:42, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further: The item was metal, probably aluminum. It was NOT heavy, but rather light. It seemed to be something of before the 21st century, but after the nineteenth century. Don't believe it has anything to do with fireplaces or where there is high heat. Do believe it is something where decoration matters - coin operated telescope perhaps!(?), of maybe decades ago since it has always been a tourist town for the last 100 years where this item was found.--Doug Coldwell ^talk 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Further again: the shape gives the impression it may have gone around a metal pole (6 inches or so), so that the object could have moved with the telescope when viewing at different angles. --Doug Coldwell ^talk 23:17, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stars=stars! 92.24.189.222 (talk) 00:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If its aluminium, why does some of it look rusty? 92.28.244.31 (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

English idioms and proverbs game

Is there a website where I can play a game involving English idioms and proverbs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Typing "games idioms proverbs" into Google gives this result. BrainyBabe (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Idioms and Proverbs

Is there a website where I can find proverbs and idioms in Arabic, Persian, Somali, Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, Tamil, Kannada, Telugu, Malayalam, Gujarati, Marathi, Oriya, Assamese, Punjabi, Sindhi, Pashto, Baloch, Lur, Turkish, Uzbek, Tajik, Kazakh, Kyrgyz, Turkmen, Azeri, Qashqai, Kurdish, and etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.92.152.160 (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try wikiquote. there is a link to it near the bottom of the wikipedia main page. 148.197.121.205 (talk) 20:32, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welsh queens/princesses

Has there ever been any wives of native Welsh kings and princes that held the title of Queen or Princess?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:15, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor de Montfort, Princess of Wales and Lady of Snowdon. Mikenorton (talk) 22:20, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any Welsh queens from before the 1200s?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to our article History of Gwynedd during the High Middle Ages, Ealdgyth, daughter of Earl Ælfgar, wife of Gruffudd ap Llywelyn and then Harold Godwineson was the only woman to "to have been known as Queen of Wales and then Queen of England in turn", but sadly there is no reference given to support it. Mikenorton (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]