Humanities desk
< August 5	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 7 >

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

August 6

United Kingdom

What is the gender neutral term of "Kingdom"? BTW, this country is ruled by a queen, but it is called kingdom, not queendom, why? The country has done so many things for achieving gender equality, but the name still shows gender bias, and no one, including those who claim to advocate gender equality, objects. Why? --Do098l (talk) 11:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_English#Arguments_against --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:33, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Monarchy"? Gabbe (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Monarchy it too biased. I suggest Womon-archy! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Okay, a couple of answers spring to mind. Firstly, in the UK you still have a large number of titles (job titles, etc) that are phrased in male terms. Not many people are bothered by that, and very few see it as a block on achieving equality - why would it be? Does "Kingdom" for you imply that within it men are deemed superior to women?

I suppose the second, and more major thing, would be that changing the name of a country is a very drastic measure associated with a high degree of cost. Although, as you say, the UK is increasingly gender-neutral, there is still more "low hanging fruit" than a name change, such as education programmes that encourage talented women into male-strongholds and talented men into female-strongholds. - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 11:45, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kings are in a sense more special than queens, because there's only one type of king. But a queen can be a queen regnant or a queen consort, so they're a dime a dozen, relatively and hyperbolically speaking. That may have something to do with why there are no queendoms, princessipalities, or duchessies. Also, those who care about these things are probably more concerned with getting rid of the law that males take precedence over females in the line of succession. That's the substantive issue, as distinct from the issue of form you're raising. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 11:46, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The gender-neutral term is "realm". All sorts of institutions change their names with the monarch: His Majesty's government and offices associated with it. But would it be easier if the political entity were called the Disunited Queendom? BrainyBabe (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the Kingdom of Great Britain was established in 1707, when the monarch was Queen Anne. I haven't seen anything to suggest that the terminology was considered odd at that time, any more than, say, the concept of a "dual monarchy" under William and Mary ("mon"-"archy" = "single" "power"). Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Another Columbia fella

Told Queen Isabella

"I don't think the world is flat

"Now whaddaya think about that?"

And she said, "ya don't?"

And he said, "no, ma'am"

And she said, "ya get outta my queendom"

And he said, "yes, maam" -- Johnny Cash

--21:22, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

King and kingdom are the sex-neutral terms. The word king derives from kin or literally, the "kinning". The word queen, from the Proto-Indo-European root *gwena. (Compare "lady".) It is always the female gender term words which are sexist. μηδείς (talk) 03:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is it called Queen Elizabeth II, not King Elizabeth II? --Do098l (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is Laissez Majeste that verges on High treason to refer to Lizzy as an "it". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean lèse-majesté ? Pleclown (talk) 11:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags!

I'm searching for 3 non-Soviet pre-1945 flags of some areas of Russia (if existing): the general areas now occupied by Buryatia, Irkutsk Oblast and Krasnoyarsk Krai.
To be more clear, I'm searching 3 flags for (non extremely strict) historical "precedents" of these entities (I was able to find this historical flag of Yakutia: http://flagspot.net/flags/ru-14_h.html).
For example, this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_the_Republic_of_Buryatia flag of Buryatia is too recent, and this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buryat-Mongol_ASSR is a Soviet one. Thanks! --151.41.138.181 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish support for Hitler?

I cam across a website Adolf The Great which claims Jews supported Hitler. Is it true? --55Centy (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would anyone believe anything from a website named 'Adolf The Great'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to imagine such a claim - when made about some individuals - is false, especially when "support" is such a flexible term. What ethnic group is so monolithic that not one member acts contrary to the others? And it's not uncommon for members of an ethnic or socioeconomic group to act against their own interests. In the U.S. there are black people who support gun control, even though by and large they're the only ones who end up being jailed for possessing one; there are also middle class people who vote Republican... Of course, in Nazi Germany these things were vastly amplified; for Jewish people who decided to try to pass for Aryan, maintaining their cover was a matter of life and death. The site mentions the Haavara Agreement, also obviously a desperate measure, but one which doubtless contributed revenue to Nazi coffers. You might even say that the Jews in the concentration camps supported Hitler with their slave labor. Wnt (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a different case. Being Nazi is definitely tied to being anti-Jewish. Being pro-gun control does not mean being anti-Black. Most crimes are committed among members of a social group, so it is hardly surprising that blacks are pro-gun control. 193.153.125.105 (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What an astoundingly idiotic site. I mean, it brags about Gertrude Stein "nominating" Hitler for a peace prize. But here's what she said: I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace... The authors of the website clearly don't recognize irony or sarcasm. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler was actually formally nominated for the Peace Prize, albeit by a Swedish Parliamentarian.[1] Gabbe (talk) 21:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there actually was a serious nomination for Hitler for the Peace Prize, presumably it came in 1938 or earlier. Someone once said that if Hitler had died in 1938, he would have been regarded as one of th greatest German leaders. Alas, he didn't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could simply click on the reference provided and read it: there is no need to suppose or presume which year it was. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 09:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(rereads) Wait, who thinks Hitler's actions before 1939 would generally be consider 'great' and lead to him being regarded as 'one of the greatest German leaders'? Seriously, what? The invasion of other countries was what sparked actual war, but that doesn't mean his actions and policies before that were okay. Early_Nazi_Timeline: maybe if he'd died in 1932, hardly anyone would remember him, at least? Or they'd remember him as the early leader of a movement that went on to power and terrible atrocities after he died? In which case, maybe people would imagine he would have avoided those things? But I don't see him being considered on of the greatest German leaders, unless all the ones after bathed in baby-blood. 82.24.248.137 (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If Hitler had died in 1938, he probably would have been remembered as the leader who returned Germany to a position of power after being defeated in the Great War. The fact that he did so using mob violence and questionable legal tactics would have been quietly forgotten. (See Otto von Bismarck: he's remembered for unifying Germany. The fact that he did so through decidedly underhanded means has been mostly forgotten.) --Carnildo (talk) 01:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the Nuremburg laws and Nazi concentration camps count as more than "mob violence and questionable legal tactics", let alone all the Hitler Youth stuff and the weird doctrines taught to children? If you read something like Mit Brennender Sorge, you can feel the palpable fear and sense of things being controlled, even from a group that was not being rounded up systematically and legally discriminated against, yet. The stuff about the children being taught horrible things in their schools, and being required to attend youth groups to be further indoctrinated which were deliberately scheduled to try to prevent them having time outside the state-controlled groups. I just really don't see this being considered 'great'. 86.164.56.34 (talk) 12:16, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would those have been remembered by anyone other than historians? Hitler's reputation does not depend on if his actions were "good" or "bad", but if the actions are remembered. Hitler is remembered for losing a war, destroying a large part of Europe, and killing millions of Jews. If he had died in 1938, he would have done none of these. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that Hitler was supported by people who didn't consider themselves Jewish, but Hitler did. This is a part of the confusion over the question, "Who is a Jew?". It's not unknown for a Jew to be on the record as hating Jews, but it is certainly unusual. A notable example is Bobby Fischer. However, if you look at it from a different perspective, it is common. Judaism does not recognise conversion away from the religion - and many of Judaism's enemies in the past were converts. For one interesting example, see Disputation of Barcelona. --Dweller (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny European countries

Why are there so many tiny countries in Europe? (Monaco, Andorra, Luxembourg, etc.) --134.10.116.13 (talk) 16:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed they weren't annexed into larger countries because there was no strategic value to them. Their main sources of income tend to be from offshore banking and tourism, neither of which were important until after WWII. Hot Stop talk-contribs 16:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A good read in this case may be Microstate. The question shouldn't by "Why are there so many tiny countries in Europe?" but rather, "Why are there so few tiny countries in Europe" today. In the area today known as Germany there were actually over 1800 independent states. That number is not a typo. One thosand eight hundred seperate, effectively independent countries, all simultaneously, in an area the size of Germany. See List of states in the Holy Roman Empire. Other places in Europe had similar organization at various times, especially Italy around the same time. If you go back far enough (say to the early middle ages, 600-1000 or so) ALL of Europe was that way, though occasionally some powerful ruler would take control over a large area (like Charlemagne, Cnut the Great, etc.) that was the exception, rather than the norm. All of Europe was essentially a bunch of petty kingdoms, duchies, counties, etc. all running their own affairs. The process of consolidation into nation-states took many centuries, and happened at different rates in different places.

The earliest such state was probably England, which consolidated its territory under the House of Wessex during the 800s and 900s and was essentially in its modern geographical limits by the time of Edward the Confessor shortly before the Norman Conquest.
In France, the process of creating a unified nation state under a single, absolute government really didn't get started until the reign of Philip II Augustus in the 1200s, and really didn't reach its full form until the late 1400s.
Spain didn't become a unified state until the Habsburgs unified it in the early 1500s, around the same time that the Russian state became unified under Ivan the Terrible.
The Scandanavian countries were constantly shifting and shuffling how they were organized, Kalmar Union, Denmark-Norway, Sweden-Norway, etc.
Germany and Italy, for historical reasons, didn't become nation-states until the 1800s, though a process known as Mediatisation which eliminated most of the tiny states.

The few tiny countries that still survive today are mainly artifacts from the age when ALL of Europe was organized that way, and while those countries are official independent, they still depend HEAVILY on their neighboring countries for many sovereign functions, i.e. Liechtenstein is quite dependent on Switzerland, San Marino on Italy, and the like. --Jayron32 17:15, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me the vast majority of those 1800 "independent countries" inside what is now Germany so ill-fitted our modern conception of "independent country" that they're not notable enough to have Wikipedia articles and are not remembered. Is there a list of them anywhere? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 22:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See List of states in the Holy Roman Empire and the links therein. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@JackofOz: For much of Europe's history, the modern concept of "country" didn't make much sense at all. There were "realms" which basically refered to the lands under the control of a lord. There were lords that were officially sovereign, and then there were lords that vassals of a more powerful lord, a system known as suzerainty. To be clear: It was not the state that was sovereign, it was the person (i.e. the King) who was sovereign. The relationships between all of these various realms, however, was (if you excuse my french) a complete clusterfuck. In many parts of Europe, states may have been de jure vassals to a suzerein, but were de facto so autonomous that they could be said to be completely independent under modern analysis. Many of these states had their own armies, their own tax systems and laws, and the like. The reasons for this complex system are, well, complex:

Much of Europe after the fall of the Western Roman Empire came under the rule of Germanic peoples, including the Franks in central Europe and France, the Lombards in Italy, the Visigoths in Spain, the Anglo-saxons in England. Germanic inheritance tradition was based on a system known as Partible inheritance, whereby all heirs would inherit something. In general, this meant that after the death of a leader, each of his sons would inherit part of his father's realm as an independent realm in its own right.
The system of primogeniture, whereby a single heir would inherit the entire realm, took several hundred years to come to pass, and the system of "oldest male inherits always" took several hundred years more. That meant there were often complex wars between competing heirs of a powerful lord, this sort of confused inheritance system led to things like the Norman Conquest and The Anarchy in English history.
Kings would parcel out much of their land to powerful noblemen to administer in the king's name. Each vassal had different responsibilities and different levels of autonomy from the King. Some were basically tax farmers who were given a few estates to produce goods and money and soldiers for the king, while others were left to run their own affairs, and became effectively independent states. These powerful lords may even begin to parcel out their own realms into smaller chunks through what was known as subinfeudation.
In the Holy Roman Empire, you had the additional problem that it was an elective monarchy, and that placed tremendous power in the hands of the electors and fellow nobles; while some Emperors could command a lot of power, many of them, especially in the later centuries of the Empire, were little more than figureheads in their role as Emperor, most of their so-called vassals managed all of their own internal affairs. Also, the systems of partible inheritance and subinfudation never really was abolished among the princes of the HRE, so after many centuries, the realm kept being subdivided and subdivided and subdivided exponentially; the Empire always had little control over its vassals, the stem duchies which made the main subdivisions of the German Kingdom in the early middle ages originally numbered only 5 (Saxony, Bavaria, Thuringia, Swabia and Franconia) but over time got so divided you would end up with messes like the Ernestine duchies; I'll let you read that article to see how messy it gets. In the HRE, not all of those 1800 states I noted above had official Imperial immediacy; only about 150 were direct vassals of the Emperor; the others were subinfuedal vassals of those 150; furthermore those 1800 states weren't represented by 1800 different princes; many princes through marriage and consolidation reigned in multiple states at once.

It really was a giant mess. --Jayron32 04:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly puts the former 600-odd independent realms within India to shame. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 05:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated, Europe used to be full of tiny statelets, some of which shared sovereignty with a higher-level entity, such as the Holy Roman Empire. Each of the little states left are around for a reason:

Liechtenstein was one of the hundreds of German-speaking countries in central Europe. It avoided getting annexed by one of the other states because it only borders Switzerland (not a part of the Empire) and its former close ally Austria. Since Austria was left out of the second German Empire in 1871, Liechtenstein couldn't be included.
Luxembourg used to be bigger, but Prussia took part of it after the Napoleonic Wars and Belgium got part after it became independent. The rest was ruled by the Netherlands in the 19th century. The Dutch royal family had agreed earlier that no woman could be the head of state of a Dutch-ruled part of the (former) Holy Roman Empire, so when a woman became queen regnant of the Netherlands, Luxembourg got a different grand duke.
Monaco, also formerly much bigger, was given to the Kingdom of Sardinia (which evolved into the Kingdom of Italy) after the Napoleonic Wars, then transferred to France as part of an exchange for French support of Italian unification. France than sold the coastal part of Monaco to its old ruling family.
Andorra was originally controlled by the bishop of Urgell. Since the diocese didn't have an army, the bishop signed a defense pact with a local nobleman. The bishop agreed to share sovereignty over Andorra with the nobleman's descendants, now represented by the president of France.
Vatican City is also another remnant of a much larger territory, the Papal States. After newly united Italy took over the territory, the popes refused to leave the Vatican until eventually Mussolini agreed to make the Vatican an independent state.
San Marino was the one little Italian state to retain its independence after unification. "Its wish to be left out of Giuseppe Garibaldi's Italian unification in the mid-nineteenth century was granted, since it had offered a safe refuge to numerous supporters of unification in earlier years." says the article History of San Marino. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

besieging a castle

A few hundred years ago during a war, suppose one side was a larger country with more people and a better organised army, and set against them were only a few hundred soldiers and a few hundred farmers and blacksmiths and such like armed with whatever they had, and though they would not stand much chance in a battle, they hope to recapture a castle lost to the enemy. A big castle with towers and stone walls, by a river and defended by most likely not a small number of enemy soldiers, which they lost a few months earlier in the conflict. How might they go about getting it back, in spite of the fact that they seem in a rather difficult position? What sorts of things might they try, if their leader was clever and experienced and their men determined? It is a rather small scene in a book I am trying to write, but I do need them to take this place back before I can get on with the rest of it.

79.66.101.250 (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read Siege, you'll find many of the common tactics used in sieging a fortification. All of them, however, depend on time, and for a smallish force beset by a much larger, stronger, and well equipped force, time is NOT on their side. The standard ways to assault a fortification is to starve them out, undermine the walls, launch corpeses into the city to spread disease, etc. All of those techniques, however, require that the assaulting force has the time to do them. With the force you describe, the seiging force itself would be vulnerable to themselves being beseiged; it was a common tactic to simply encircle the besieging force with a still larger force; essentially pinning the besiegers between the castle walls and a larger ring of forces outside of them. No, you need to end the seige quickly, which would likely require some subterfuge whereby some of the soldiers are able to sneak into the castle and open the gates from the inside (not an easy task) or undertake a series of daring assassinations of the leaders of the defenders to demoralize the rest. Traditionaly seigecraft with a small, motley band against a well defended position that had numerical superiority would not likely be possible. --Jayron32 17:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Subterfuge is indeed the way to go. It was quite common for castles or fortresses to be taken by treachery - opening the main gates, or a smaller postern, so that the besiegers can get inside. Historically, this would tend to be done by bribery (money or a future position of power) or by one of the garrison having sympathies with the besiegers. For the purposes of fiction, you might prefer the motive to be some sort of romantic involvement between someone in the castle and one of the besiegers, or a kin relationship. (Or some use of magic to influence the mind of one of the garrison, if your universe allows that.) Or there could be prisoners within the castle who somehow manage to get loose and then open a gate. An occasionally used ploy in fiction is to have a group of besiegers gain access to the castle through its sewers, through its water supply, or even through a garderobe. Some of these methods may have been used for real, but I can't remember the examples.

Once the besiegers are inside the castle, the advantages of the garrison are largely eliminated. In room-by-room melee fighting, the defenders for the most part can no longer make use of cavalry, specialised weapons such as pikes, and their better tactical discipline and training. An untrained but angry blacksmith with improvised but effective weapons could be quite an opponent in such fighting. Even if the defenders still have greater numbers (which they may not, since castle garrisons tended to be quite small, and peasant armies can get quite large), this may be of no benefit to them in fighting in confined spaces inside the castle. The attackers should probably set the place on fire, throw people off battlements, and slaughter a few of the high-ranking nobles in horrific ways, of course. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An Act of God has proved useful during a siege to at least one warrior. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 18:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, literal Deus ex machinas are generally frowned upon for serious fiction. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan horse? You could also have it be that some of the characters have been taken prisoner and are being kept inside the castle only to escape, cause a lot of chaos, and lower the draw bridge. A long forgotten about sewer passage is also a common trope.AerobicFox (talk) 18:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret tunnel, built years before by a King to visit his paramour, or as an escape tunnel, unknown to the invaders who captured the castle. Might open into the master suite, the root cellar, the armory, the chapel, a tomb, wherever makes an interesting story. Edison (talk) 20:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that subterfuge is probably the most likely and realistic option. One plausible idea is to have internal divisions within the castle — someone is waiting in the wings to become the new leader or whatever, and is willing to use the guys outside as a means to do that. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the secret tunnel idea. It might be worth noting that there is a famous episode of history in which Edward III, the teenage king of England, captured his archenemy Roger Mortimer by introducing a small force into a castle through a secret tunnel in the middle of the night. Looie496 (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Secret tunnel is quite plausible because it's their castle, and the enemy doesn't even know where to post a watch. Kite#Military_applications is admittedly not so plausible for farmers and blacksmiths, but I like it anyway. Maybe they've long had a local festival, and they have a depot of materials outside the castle to make some large manned kites to fly over the wall in the night. Wnt (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Real enemy soldiers, (bribed, coerced, whatever) or friendly soldiers wearing enemy garb and able to imitate enemy speech adequately appear at the gate with a motley crew of apparently wounded, limping , securely bound "prisoners" to be taken to the dungeons for torture/interrogation before execution. Behind them, a donkey pulls a cart with their captured weapons. Once inside the gates , "Surprise!" the prisoners aren't really injured or bound. They grab their weapons from the handy cart, and they and their "guards" go on the offensive, slaying the gate guards and letting in the rest. Used in various movies and TV shows.Edison (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A group of noncombatant Friars or whatever heavily garbed come in to visit the shrine. "Surprise!" They are really commandos in disguise, and they secure the opening of the gate. Popular tactic in all sorts of fiction. Edison (talk) 00:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As in the end of The Adventures of Robin Hood. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subterfuge and bribery that Demiurge mentioned has a few real life examples - Antioch in 1098, and Constantinople in 1204 and [[in 1453. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:06, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Antioch example is particularly instructive. If the castle is reasonably large, then it will have some inhabitants who will remain in it even after its original capture by the occupying force. Kitchen staff, serving-women and washerwomen, fletchers and farriers and rat-catchers and such, and their dependents. These might initially accept the rule of their new overlords, but retain some resentment towards them (especially if mistreated). They might assist in helping the forces of the smaller country regain access to the castle. Alternatively, as at Antioch, they might reveal their true loyalty once the liberating force appears within the walls, and start assisting in slaughtering the garrison. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Climbing up the toilet is one, charming, answer that has delighted students of medieval history... probably for centuries. --Dweller (talk) 14:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth and death dates for Jessie Lemont Trausil, translator of poems by Rainer Maria Rilke

Jessie Lemont translated extensively under that name, but she was married to Hans Trausil, so her obituary could be under either name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howardkmyers (talk • contribs) 18:14, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From Google Books searches I find that she was born in Louisville in 1862 and died in New York in 1947. Her obituary was published in The New York Times on March 10, 1947.--Cam (talk) 19:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And the Times obit says she died "Friday" which would have been 7 March 1947. - Nunh-huh 20:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shielded Soldiers

While watching Captain America, I started wondering about soldiers carrying shields. Is there a modern-day army (not like a SWAT team kinda thing, a proper Military is what I'm after) that has a shield standard issue? If not, when was the last army that did?199.94.68.201 (talk) 19:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Riot shield states that "some military organizations" use 'em, but doesn't say who. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really think it's common (or as needed) - these days, people generally aren't trying to stab you so much as shoot you - and we've developed bulletproof vests and kevlar helmets for that. Though some military equipment comes with gun shields mounted on them. ^Avic _ennasis @ 22:19, 6 Av 5771 / 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes but when was the last time where people were fighting wars predominantly with swords and yet those are still issued to many militaries. (Weird, Firefox is telling me that I mis-spelled the plural of military!?) Dismas|^(talk) 23:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But only as ornamental weapons. --Mr.98 (talk) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, while US Marines may be issued a Mameluke sword, it's likely any blade fighting would happen with the KA-BAR.(Do they still use Bayonets?) But IIRC, even as late as World War II, the Japanese carried Katanas into battle. No idea on shields. If you count actual use of riot shields, I've heard the British Military used them in 1970s and 1980s during The Troubles. (something like this, maybe?) If you count simply having riot shields, I'm sure a couple could be found in any Military Police headquarters. ^Avic _ennasis @ 00:46, 7 Av 5771 / 7 August 2011 (UTC)

The British army still use bayonets occasionally in combat. [2] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't provide a source, but I was watching the Military History Channel's recent documentary about the Falklands War, and it said that bayonets were used extensively in the fighting on the ridges and hills North and North West of Port Stanley where there was a lot of close quarter fighting between British Paras and Argentines.Most of the fighting was at night, and the British Paras were being careful not to wake the residents... :) --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 21:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant articles are Battle of Mount Longdon (Paras), Battle of Wireless Ridge (Paras) and Battle of Mount Tumbledown (Guards and Ghurkas). Alansplodge (talk) 07:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC) [reply]

In the Chinese theatre in WW2, Japanese katanas occasionally actually did battle with Chinese daos. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 02:48, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And don't forget the Kukri; still being carried about in Afghanistan today. Alansplodge (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article shield notes that shields were used by Zulus in the 19th century, but generally fell out of use in Europe with the rise of gunpowder - though Scottish clan soldiers used them into the 18th century. Neither of these had formal uniform in the sense of modern armies.

Regarding swords, List of individual weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces#In_active_service_7 lists some knives and bayonets still issued in limited circumstances. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is it called when the church is ruling a nation or state? what kind of government is this?

When a nation or city-state is ruled by the church, like f.ex the papal state is ruled by the pope, then what is this form of government/ruling called?

You have monarchy, democracy, oligarchy etc. but what is it called when the highest rulers are of the church? You might answer papacy or something like that since i used the papal state as an example but it doesn't necessarily need to be the pope ruling. I know there's a word for it but i don't remember it and I can't seem to find it.

85.167.223.37 (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Theocracy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 19:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More accurately, ecclesiocracy. Theocracy would be direct rule by God without an intermediary. Schyler (exquirere bonum ipsum) 21:12, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to the first definition of theocracy. Dismas|^(talk) 21:19, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly to explain the distinction between what Schyler is saying and what Dismas is saying, the word "theorcracy" means literally "god rule", and the word "ecclesiocracy" means literally "clergy rule". However, as word usage does not necessarily directly come from the root meanings of the bits that make make up the words, 99.9999% of the time a person says "Theocracy", what they will mean is "rule by the clergy". --Jayron32 21:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article ecclesiocracy redirects to theocracy; see also theodemocracy. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:51, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Technically speaking, God (or gods) do not overtly "rule" a nation. The clergy who actually rule the nation may claim they are takin their authority from God, but that's not quite the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In this context, theocracy works almost exactly like communism does. "Pure" theocracy would be "God rule", in the sense that the goal of theocrats is often to purify their country (or the world) so that the law of God would be the only law, and that the people would be directly obeying the rule of God, literally. In the same way, "pure" communism has no central government because of the withering away of the state that is supposed to happen, though like real theocratic governments, real communist governments tend to be heavily authoritarian, and quite some distance from "stateless" regimes they are very "state-centric" regimes, especially in contrast to secular and democratic states, which generally allow more individual sovereignty (i.e. more personal freedom) and less state sovereignty. --Jayron32 19:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really really real? I haven't noticed the statism you talk about in the Krondstat committee, nor the Barcelona councils, nor in the Workers Councils of 1956. This is somewhat like comparing using the Government of Iran to inspect theocracy while neglecting the diggers communities, US socialist communes of the 19th century, or the anabaptist underground during the reformation. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course there are both religious movements and communist movements (and even religious communist movements) which are democratic and even non-statist. There are, however, no important national governments which could accurately be described as "Theocratic-democracies" or "Communist-democracies". Modern countries which have regimes which charactize themselves (or are usually characterized by reliable sources) as either "communist countries" or "theocratic countries" are invariably authoritarian (though there are lots of authoritarian regimes which are neither communist or religious, of course). The movements you cite represent interesting footnotes in history, but do not represent significant national sovereign governments. So yes, they can all be truely really real movements and really have existed, and still not contradict my thesis one iota. --Jayron32 03:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you inspect your methodology and terminology (but not your conclusions). Authoritarianism has been considered broadly vacuous in the social sciences and humanities I read, and I attend rather closely to all opinions on the Soviet-style societies. Considering edge cases is vitally important for the capacity to make general claims. I wouldn't decry absolutely Christian Government, even considering Calvin's Geneva, when, in contrast, I can look at the North East of British America in the 17th century. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low inflation increases the real value of debts

If you have $X amount of debt, then with high or moderate inflation the real cost of your future payments to gradually pay off or maintain the debt diminishes with time. However, with low or zero inflation the real cost of your future payments to gradually pay off or maintain the debt does not diminish with time but stays more or less the same.

Thus when the brakes are applied to an economy and the rate of inflation goes towards zero, then the real present value of the future debt payments mushrooms upwards.

Is this why economies like Greece, Italy, Ireland etc are having problems? After joining the euro the inflation rate in their economies dropped, and correspondingly the real value of their debts rose considerably to more than they could cope with and they had the problems that have been in the news in recent times. 92.28.249.101 (talk) 22:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason governments like those are in trouble is because they've been spending more than they've been taking in in taxes. It doesn't help that inflation is low. A country may be able to "inflate away" its debt if it controls the currency in which the debt is denominated. But Greece, Italy and Ireland don't control their currency anymore -- they use the euro. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That dosnt address the point raised in the question - is it correct that a reducing rate of inflation causes the real value of gradually paying off or maintaining debt to shoot upwards? In other words, if inflation had not decreased, then we wouldnt be having the current and recent problems where countries cannot afford their debt payments (because they have suddenly increased in their real value even if they have not borrowed any more). 92.24.133.68 (talk) 11:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is correct that reducing inflation causes the anticipated future value of repayment to increase. I don't think it is correct that this is a major cause of the problems in Greece and elsewhere. Greece's problem, for example, results from debts they incurred after joining the Euro zone, not from an increased difficulty in paying their pre-existing debts. Looie496 (talk) 16:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You mean they paid off all their previous debt before joining the euro, and then racked up a huge amount of debt in the short period of time since then? That seems unlikely. Its more likely that they carried the old debt forward, which then greatly increased in real servicing costs as described above. 92.24.191.250 (talk) 22:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the article "Economy of Greece". It contains historical data on debt as percentage of GDP both before and after joining the Eurozone. Gabbe (talk) 08:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]