Humanities desk
< February 12	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 14 >

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.

February 13

Last monarchs in war

Three questions: Who was the last King to die in war? Who was the last King to fight or lead an army in war? Who was the last Queen to fight or lead an army in war? George II of Great Britain and James IV of Scotland are not answers.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Czar Nicholas II was probably the last king to die in war. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 03:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I mean battlefield, I guess, in active participation not as a result of a war.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:10, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't even die as a result of a war. He died during WWI, but in circumstances that had no direct connection to the war at all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 07:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always considered the Russian Civil War to be a war, and didn't mention WW1, Jack. KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Rani Lakshmibai in 1858 (disputed) during the Indian Rebellion of 1857? Clarityfiend (talk) 04:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yohannes IV of Ethiopia (1889)? ---Sluzzelin talk 03:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Muammar Gadaffi? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He was a colonel, not a monarch. Clarityfiend (talk)

Did HE know that? Dbfirs 09:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The last king of England to die on a battlefield is Richard III, surely...--TammyMoet (talk) 12:32, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we are limiting this to Europe... Although Napoleon was not (technically) a "King", he was a crowned Head of State... and he did personally lead his troops in battle. Blueboar (talk) 16:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget Yaa Asantewaa (1900). Marco polo (talk) 16:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ibn Saud of Saudi Arabia appears to have led troops in battle as late as 1920. Marco polo (talk) 16:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold III of Belgium acted as commander-in-chief of the Belgian army in May 1940. Iblardi (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've read that King Gustavus Adolphus, in the 1630's was the last head of state killed in battle. Edison (talk) 05:19, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't even the last Swedish head of state killed in battle; Karl XII was killed by enemy fire while leading his army's siege of a Danish fortress. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Grasshopper

Resolved

Who took over the Grasshopper banking house of 68 Lombard Street, London and when, please? I came across a note: " Note: dating approximate; 'Andrew Stone was the first of nine generations at the Grasshopper and no less than twenty-one of his descendants became bankers there' ‎(ODNB)‎". Kittybrewster ☎ 09:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Martins Bank. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our local Barclays bank (formerly Martins) still has, carved in stone, both a grasshopper and a Liver bird above the door. Martins Bank was obviously interested in its history. Dbfirs 09:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Marxist sense of "exploitation"

Exploitation, in the context of Marxism, is a technical term usually used to mean something like "the extraction of surplus-value". In the Communist Manifesto, Marx wrote of "the exploitation of children by their parents". Did he mean "exploitation" in this technical sense (I imagine at the time of writing, it was not uncommon for parents to rely upon children as a source of unpaid labour), or was it meant in a more colloquial sense? --superioridad ^(discusión) 10:12, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At the time Marx was writing compulsory education was quite new, having been brought in by the Education Act 1870, and then only compulsory until age 12 from 1880. So children were expected to undertake paid labour from a very early age, and therefore Marx probably meant it in the technical sense. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC) EDIT: I'm referring to the UK as Marx was writing here. It may have been different in different countries at that time. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He's pretty specific about what he means:

Do you charge us with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their parents? To this crime we plead guilty. ... The bourgeois clap-trap about the family and education, about the hallowed co-relation of parent and child, becomes all the more disgusting, the more, by the action of Modern Industry, all family ties among the proletarians are torn asunder, and their children transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor.

It's about child labor, which was still pretty common in the world at the time that Marx wrote the Manifesto. --Mr.98 (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's nominally about child labour, but I'm going to go full Autonomist Marxist and note that the context is the bourgeois family. Marx could be making a Selma Jamesean or Mariarosa Dalla Costan argument about circuits of reproduction of labour power within the family and society. Remember "exploitation" isn't just capitalist exploitation. It is also feudal exploitation, and the extraction of social wealth from society in any class society. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's this picture called in English?

I think the Spanish name is "el estudio flotante", but in English I don't know: this is a link to the picture (link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.96.44 (talk) 10:45, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've hidden the long URL in the question The painting is Manet's Claude Monet peignant dans son atelier (unreferenced article on the French Wikipedia), which I would translate as "Claude Monet painting in his studio". It also seems to be called Claude Monet in his Studio Boat. "El estudio flotante" just means "the floating studio". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.96.44 (talk) 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

conservative cities and liberal cities in Lebanon

I recently read about Sidon and it said that the city is conservative city in Lebanon. Is there any other cities in Lebanon that are conservative and are there any city in Lebanon that are liberal? -- 18:49, 13 February 2012‎ 70.53.230.148

Which definition of liberal are you wanting us to use? The American one or the one the rest of the world uses? HiLo48 (talk) 19:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that any western definition of those terms would be too useful in discussing Lebanon, since they don't correspond very well to the main lines of division in that country... AnonMoos (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

acharya chankya spoke about ...we need one more acharya chanakya in 2014 for india

Dear Sir I want to know above mentioned statement through Wikipedia thanx & regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.96.24.107 (talk) 20:51, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps somebody else will understand what you are asking, but I must say from my perspective that I have no idea what your question means. I guess it relates somehow to the person Chanakya, but I don't understand beyond that. --ColinFine (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The question may relate to the 2014 general election in India: maybe someone has expressed the wish for a figure with those qualities, but I doubt the "above mentioned statement" is covered on Wikipedia. Sussexonian (talk) 07:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus

Did Jesus really exist? --108.225.117.174 (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

His existence is about as well-established as that of any ancient figure who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paul the Apostle and some of its links also make for interesting reading. The conversion of Paul is not unlike the conversion of the Emperor Constantine. Paul, in particular, either stuck his neck out (literally) for some fantasy he both invented and totally believed in - OR, being a contemporary, he was well aware of the existence of Jesus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:07, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to the NT Paul persecuted Christians before his conversion, so he wouldn't have "invented" him as a "fantasy". I don't know if that necessarily leads to the conclusion that Jesus must have existed. Iblardi (talk) 12:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. The vision or miracle or whatever it was he experienced, it's unlikely that he invented anything - he was persecuting those who might have "invented" it, and then he switched courses and bought in - and was eventually executed for it. That raises the question, which I have not researched, do we even know that Paul, Peter, etc., actually existed too? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their existence is about as well-established as that of any ancient figure who was not a ruler or high government official, and who is not mentioned in contemporary inscriptions... AnonMoos (talk) 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]