Humanities desk
< June 6	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 8 >

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.

June 7

Normandy

I've seen a documentary on the Hundred Year's War saying that the reconquest of Normandy was really difficult and the English met with much resistance. The English kings were Dukes of Normandy only a century before, Did the Norman French by this generation view subsequent Kings of England as a foreign invaders with no sentimental attachment to Normandy? Or were there certain parties in Normandy who desired a restoration of the Duchy of Normandy under English control?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 01:44, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get a "century"; from 1204 or 1214 to Battle of Crécy was over 130 years. In any case, the long-term English power base in France during the 13th and 14th centuries was actually Aquitaine... AnonMoos (talk) 02:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't a century, roughly 100 years?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:00, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the point of view of most people on the ground in Normandy, it would have been a lot closer to a century and a half than a century -- or two centuries until the systematic English reconquest of Normandy after Harfleur and Agincourt... AnonMoos (talk) 03:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)'[reply]

In those days, popular sentiment wasn't a particularly important factor. Conquering a place meant defeating the opposing army and capturing the castles. If the castles were strongly held and well provisioned, capturing them could take a long time. Looie496 (talk) 14:02, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) One thing to remember about the historiography of the Hundred Years War is that the "standard" view of it as "English versus French" is a viewpoint that comes about MUCH later, colored by a sort of nationalism that did not exist at the time. It's much more meaningful to think of the war as the Plantagenets versus the Valois. That the Plantagenets were kings of England was actually not a big factor in the war itself. It wasn't the English that were attempting the reconquest of Normandy, it was the Plantagenets that were, and they were claiming it under the same legal theory that they were claiming the throne of France: it required decent through a female line (in Normandy's case through the Empress Matilda). The Valois view was that decent through females could not be used as a means to inherit a title (Salic Law). The Valois viewed Normandy as having gone extinct, and thus reverted back to the King of France, which by the time of the HYW, they had conveniently also inherited. The Plantagenet claim to the French throne was through Isabella of France, mother of Edward III of England, which would have placed Edward III much closer to the throne via her than the Valois claimant. Edward was a grandson of Philip IV of France, while the Valois claimant Philip of Valois was grandson of Philip III of France, thus further removed from the most recent king. However, Philip of Valois's claim was through all males. The English, as they were, probably didn't give a shit, except as hired soldiers who wanted their pay and to go home after their terms of service were done. --Jayron32 14:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gifts of the King to President Ling-Kong

So I just learned that there's a historical basis for the bit in The King and I in which Rama IV offers to send war elephants to America to help President Ling-Kong prosecute his war. I note that Lincoln's letter acknowledged the receipt of various gifts of less practical and greater symbolic value, e.g. a sword and elephant tusks. What happened to them? Are they held in the Lincoln presidential library perhaps, or at the Smithsonian, or somewhere else? Do they even exist anymore? Nyttend (talk) 03:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The letter was sent to Buchanan not Lincoln and wasn't related to the war since it hadn't started yet. They are all in the National Archives Sword and scabbard, Tusk and the Daguerreotype..--KAVEBEAR (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads of state

In this image of heads of state, taken on the 70th anniversary of D-Day in Normandy, France, who is the tall fellow behind Putin? --Guy Macon (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands. - Lindert (talk) 13:49, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 16:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bhumibol Adulyadej

Who was the longest reigning monarch in the world before Bhumibol Adulyadej took that spot, presumably on his/her death?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:48, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) According to this list, King Bhumi is #29. Admittedly, the monarchs #1 to #28 seem to be dead. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 20:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No who was the last monarch who reign longer than him at the time but have since died? It's like the record we have for oldest current living man, I want to know who held the record of longest reigning current monarch before him.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that list is complete, I'd assume Paku Alam VIII (#59) - he died in 1998 having reigned since 1937. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know for sure, but Hirohito would be a good guess. He reigned for 62 years, and when he died in 1989, Bhumibol had already been king for 42 years, so I guess he claimed the title at that point. Favonian (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This and this say that Hirohito was the world's longest reigning monarch at the time of his 1989 death, but most sources say only that he had the longest reign in Japanese history. In any case, we need look no further back than 21 August 1982, when King Sobhuza II of Swaziland died. He was at that time the world's currently longest reigning monarch, and also the longest reigning monarch ever, having been on the throne for over 82 years. Now, Hirohito came to the throne well before Bhumibol, so if he didn't assume the mantle on Sobhuza's death, who did? The remaining question is: Was there another monarch who assumed the mantle on Hirohito's death, with Bhumibol stepping in at some later time? We really need a List of Successive World's Longest Reigning Monarchs. -- Jack of Oz

^{[pleasantries]} 21:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hirohito definitely wasn't the longest to date — Louis XIV of France got past 70 years (I'm on a bad Internet connection, and I can't load his article; I wonder why this page loads and others don't?), although the Old Kingdom pharaoh Pepi II may be the ultimate; although the length of his reign is disputed, some historians agree with the ancient accounts of him reigning 90-something years or over 100, since he came to the throne as a little boy and died at an extremely old age. Nyttend (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think we may be at cross purposes. The current longest reigning monarch at any point in time is not necessarily the one who has had the longest reign in world history. Bhumibol is certainly not the latter record-holder, but he is the longest-reigning of all the world's currently reigning monarchs, and that's all we're interested in. If he dies before Queen Elizabeth II, she will then assume the mantle, even though she probably won't have beaten Queen Victoria's reign, let alone Sobhuza's. -- Jack of Oz

^{[pleasantries]} 02:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Elizabeth II will exceed Queen Victoria's reign if she's still around on 10 September 2015. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I derive from that list. When Bhumibol came to the throne, the champion was Jagatjit Singh (from 1877 Sep 03). On 1948 May 5 apparently his state was absorbed into a republic, and the title passed to

Wilhelmina of the Netherlands until 1948 September 04
Ibrahim of Johor until 1959 May 08
Sobhuza II until 1982 August 21
Hirohito until 1989 January 07
Paku Alam VIII until 1998 September 11
Pakubuwono XII until 2004 June 11

—Tamfang (talk) 00:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Holding a prisoner or a hostage for a long period of time

The recent news with Bowe Bergdahl made me think of this question. This question is not about his specific case, but just about prisoners (or hostages) in general. When "they" (the enemy) hold a prisoner for an extended period of time (years on end), what exactly do they do with them, day in and day out? Obviously, they must provide some level of "room and board" (housing, food, etc.). They must provide them access to the shower, toilets, etc. So, what is the typical scenario? They basically keep the prisoner locked away in a room 24 hours a day? And then check in on him from time to time, to give him food, etc.? It seems like a lot of trouble and a lot of "work" / effort to "maintain" the prisoner/hostage. Not to mention, if there are several prisoners. It's sort of like taking in an extra room mate, one more mouth to feed. So, what typically happens? Does anyone know? I read all the articles here in Wikipedia. I am not referring to situations where, for example, they use the POW as slave labor. I am referring to a situation similar to Bergdahl, where they take one guy (or many) and just hold onto them for many years. Another example that comes to mind is the Iran hostage crisis. They held 66 people for 444 days. That's a lot of people to care for and a long time to care for them. Think of all the necessary food and necessary living space, etc., that that would entail! Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In this article you can read Brian Keenan's experience of being held hostage by Hezbollah for nearly five years. There didn't seem to be any imperative to provide shower facilities. Alansplodge (talk) 20:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I will have to read that. I am sure each situation is different. Certainly, showers are not "imperative" (nor even is food, for that matter). But, if I had to have someone living with me or near me for a long stretch of time, I'd want them to be clean, showered, and hygienic. In other words, it's not only in the best interest of the hostage, but it is also in the best interest of the hostage taker. (I would think.) Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:15, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was something (on Al Jazeera I think) about the "value" of hostages to different groups. It compared Bergdahl's treatment to that of those taken by rebels in South America. Where hostages are taken for their monetary value (ransom) alone, they are often, apparently, treated better as there is an effort to assure families and governments that the "commodity" in question is being kept in good condition - part of the effort to assure them that if they pay, the person will be returned in good condition. Where the purpose of the kidnapping is to terrorise, treating a hostage badly adds to the terror of those "who might be next". As I understand it, the taking of Bergdahl was designed to serve both purposes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John II got the "royal" treatment: "during his captivity ... he was purchasing horses, pets, and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band." Clarityfiend (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another type of extended hostage-taking is cases like Natascha Kampusch and Elizabeth Smart, where a twisted individual seems to think that holding someone captive is a way to gain a family member. From that point of view it is natural that they would want to take care of them. --69.158.92.137 (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. Very bizarre cases. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In case you've never heard of her, you may be interested in the bizarre case of Patty Hearst, who actually joined her politically-motivated captors, and fought side by side with them. 124.181.239.69 (talk) 15:41, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Stockholm syndrome. It's a type of survival technique. It's important to keep in mind that Patty Hearst did some prison time for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The economics of keeping large numbers of prisoners for a long time tend to eventually convert them into slaves. That is, to earn their keep they are put to work. Also, to lower the cost of guarding them, they are often moved to an inaccessible position, such that even if they escape, there is nowhere to go. This approach was taken by selecting the island of Alcatraz by the Americans, and Devil's Island by the French, while Siberia was chosen, instead of an island, for part of the Russian gulag system. StuRat (talk) 16:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of Gothic-Blackletter writing style is this?

I wouldn't call it a "font", but what kind of writing style is this? Is it a variant of Rotunda? It is pretty commond around Siena, but also in other parts of Tuscany. It is commonly associated to Middle Ages and local traditions. Thanks in advance.--Carnby (talk) 21:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like a type of Uncial script, which is earlier than Gothic, although this is presumably a modern imitation. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:19, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've generally seen it called Lombardic. —Tamfang (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - see this, this and this. Alansplodge (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]