Humanities desk
< April 25	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 27 >

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.

April 26

Lion in symbolism

How come lions survived in art and symbolism, and especially in heraldry, long after lions went extinct in Europe? 76.66.129.129 (talk) 11:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a fierce, impressive animal. It was gone from Europe, but that doesn't mean it disappeared from their memory or from traveler's tales. Unicorns and dragons are also found in art and symbolism - and Europeans saw even fewer of them. Matt Deres (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Same with two-headed eagles. Having a national symbol be impressive has always been more important than it being common. For example, Ben Franklin wanted to make the wild turkey the national symbol of the US, because it was more common and not as much of a predator. Fortunately, we got the bald eagle instead, even though there are more in Canada than the US. StuRat (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The many Biblical references to lions may also be a factor. [1] AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And from the classics - e.g. the Nemean Lion. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't totally gone just because they weren't in mainland Europe. There was a different species, the Asiatic lion in the Middle East at least as late as the age of the crusades, when Europeans would have seen them fairly often. This is the same period where heraldry really developed. (One European even supposedly had a pet lion while on crusade.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, many royals and aristocrats kept a Menagerie of exotic animals - sometimes including lions. Iapetus (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Lions were widespread in North Africa, including coastal areas, until the 20th century; see Barbary lion. Europeans had many ways of learning about them, including a rather extensive traffic in captive lions between North Africa and Europe. Looie496 (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medieval aristocrats maintained private zoos called Menageries which often included exotic animals such as lions. While the average dirt farmer may not have had cause to see a lion, it would not have been impossible for royal and noble Europeans to have seen one, and even perhaps owned one. Charlemagne owned several lions, for example. --Jayron 32 14:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Roman Empire imported lions to Rome for the "games", so they would have been widely known then, and Roman influence spread throughout much of Europe. StuRat (talk) 15:16, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India and Mount Everest

Does India have a current claim on Mount Everest? If so, why? Hack (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Everest is located right on the border between Nepal and China, and that international border passes over the summit. It is a long way from India, and I am unaware of any such claim. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First ascent. India claims Sherpa Tenzing, who made the first ascent in 1953 with Edmund Hillary, was Indian. Akseli9 (talk) 16:50, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he was born in British India, which at the time included Nepal, (along with Bhutan, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, etc.) Seems like splitting hairs. He was born in, and lived a large part of his life in, and was ethnically, Nepalese. --Jayron 32 23:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting a border battle on top of the Himalayas could prove entertaining. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:40, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was only 14,000 feet. I'm talking about taking the fight to the top of Everest. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Engaging in large scale ground combat operations at a 14,000 foot elevation is very, very difficult. I suspect that more soldiers would be lost to pulmonary edema and frostbite than bullets. At 28,000 feet, it is (though I hestitate to use this word) impossible. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Violence and fighting were unthinkable, if not impossible, in such blessed and remote environment, remote from anything that makes wars thinkable. But that was before Mount Everest has now turned into yet another business. To date I think the new record for the highest fight ever, is in 2013 the attack against Ueli Steck at 7000m (23000ft) just below Camp 3, then the mob that almost killed him at 6400m (21000ft). Be patient, considering how increasingly overcrowded and how increasingly disputed are the fixed ropes after Camp 4 and close to the top, I'm confident we will soon hear about our first battle above 8000m... Akseli9 (talk) 12:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Given the disasters of last year and this year, this little industry might have to go on hiatus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Siachen conflict. Summary: for years India and Pakistan have been carrying on a military conflict on the Siachen Glacier in Kashmir, at an altitude of nearly 20,000 ft. As our article notes, an estimated 97% of casualties have been caused by weather and climate rather than military activity. Looie496 (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems an Indian diplomat caused a bit of a storm a few years back by suggesting Everest was in India.[2] Hack (talk) 05:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]