Humanities desk
< August 24	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 26 >

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 25

What is the difference? Kingdom, Empire, Dynasty, emirate, sultanate

What is the difference between the words empire, kingdom, dynasty, emirate, and sultanate? Please and thanks.Donmust90 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 01:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You could start with Kingdom, Empire, Dynasty, Emirate, Sultanate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC

There is an odd one out in your question: Kingdoms, empires, emirates, and sultanates are all monarchies, forms of government, and they all can also mean the corresponding realm. Dynasty is a sequence of rulers or leaders from the same family, not necessarily limited to monarch families. (And of course, see the articles Baseball Bugs linked to). ---Sluzzelin talk 02:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a similar question asked a while back (regarding the difference between a king/kingdom and an emperor/empire - I'm afraid I can't find a link). I think the main conclusion was that an empire/emperor is powerful enough (or otherwise well-respected enough) to get away with calling itself that. (Because calling yourself an Emperor implies you are better that all the mere kings, and possible should rule them. And that you are as good as the other emperors, and so should not be ruled by them. So you'd better be able to back up your claim, or else the other kings and emperors will take you down).

The reverse can also happen - someone takes a less prestigious title, either to avoid antagonizing a higher-ranked ruler, explicitly declare their allegiance to them, or to maintain the pretense that they are and that the emperor isn't just their puppet. See for example Odoacer (conquered Italy, declared himself "King of Italy" and pledged allegiance to the Eastern Roman Emperor; Timur (effectively an emperor, but merely called himself "Amir" (general), and kept a descendent of Ghengis Khan as a puppet emperor to give himself legitimacy); or the Shoguns - again, de-facto rulers calling themselves "generals" to imply that the emperor is still in charge).

Also bear in mind that a lot of these terms may once have had specific meanings but have become fuzzier over time, as rulers decide to adopt the title used by a notable previous ruler (or their name, like "Caesar"), or when they get used as translations or equivalents of foreign rulers. Iapetus (talk) 17:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found the previous question - 2015 August 15#King and Emperor. Well remembered Iapetus. Alansplodge (talk) 09:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An important thing to remember to is that these words often have multiple definitions as well. When one speaks of an Empire, do we mean "a monarchy ruled by an Emperor" or do we mean "A multinational state formed by continuous expansion of territory and subjugation of peoples" Because, both are correct. But there have been states that are the both (like the Roman Empire) states that are the first but not the second (The Empire of Trebizond) and states that are the second but not the first (the Timurid Empire). --Jayron 32 18:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom, Empire and Dynasty have all been the titles of TV dramas.... As far as I know, Emirate and Sultanate have not. Blueboar (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The British Empire grew under Victoria, probably to it's greatest extent, because there was decolonisation. Victoria was proclaimed Empress of India in 1876, which suggests it was considered an empire on its own. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see British Raj: "The resulting political union [of British India and the Princely States] was also called the Indian Empire and after 1876 issued passports under that name". BTW, the British Empire actually reached its fullest extent after 1919 with the addition of the League of Nations Mandates, some of which (especially Mandatory Palestine) turned out to be a lot more trouble than they were worth. Alansplodge (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I was getting at was places like Australia, which became independent in 1901, so they weren't ruled by an emperor. 213.107.114.104 (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no it didn't. 1901 was when the 6 colonies federated into a single national entity (in which the former colonies became States). But all that meant, as far as our relationship with the UK was concerned, was that we went from 6 smaller colonies to 1 large colony. The 6 colonial governors remained, now as governors of the states; and we gained a governor-general. Look all you like, but you won't find any reliable source worthy of the name that gives an unequivocal answer to the question of when Australia became independent. Some suggest it was in 1920, when Australia was accepted as a member of the League of Nations. Some suggest it was 1939, from when our acceptance of the Statute of Westminster 1931 became effective (although it wasn't actually accepted until 1941). Others suggest it was as late as 1986, when the Australia Acts came into force. Sources all agree it was not an overnight thing, to which a specific date can be ascribed, but a gradual process. Nobody denies we're independent now, but when that status was actually achieved is an extremely fuzzy thing. But on one point, all sources agree: it was definitely later than 1901. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even after the Statute of Westminster, Australia, Canada et al were still considered to be part of the Empire, although independent of the UK. The 1937 Imperial Conference was attended by the prime ministers of all the Dominions, along with representatives od India and Burma. By the 1940, the term "Commonwealth and Empire" was being used, but by 1944, similar meetings were being described as Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conferences. The Dominions, although part of an empire, were never reigned over by an emperor but by a king (or queen regnant). In British usege, the "emperor" title only ever applied to India, see Emperor of India. There was still a substantial empire when Elizabeth II came to the throne, but she was never an empress. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Joint Chiefs of Staff memo October, 10 1947

Hi, I'm looking for a memorandum issued by the Joint Chiefs of Staff on October 10, 1947 entitled "The Problem of Palestine". Would any of you know where to find it? 130.195.253.15 (talk) 02:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno about online, but it at least is here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 05:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No luck with finding it online either, but the memo does get a brief mention in: Israel: The Will to Prevail by Danny Danon, Sorry, no page number because it's and e-book, but hopefully Google Books will be in a good mood and show you my link. Alansplodge (talk) 14:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The National Archives Catalog claims only one paper copy at College Park. You may be able to order copies.—eric 14:20, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Google CIA and Archives. Then, search your key words. The only 1947 mention I found (quickly) was FOIA 0000107443. DOR (HK) (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Risk averse nature of public sector organisations

Are most public sector organisations and organisations providing services to the public risk averse by nature? 82.132.220.29 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about this, so I typed /risk aversion public sector organization/ into google scholar [1]. The first three hits look relevant, and have freely accessible PDF copies. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is the Marco Polo in the TV commercial historically accurate?

Besides him speaking modern English of course. What era clothing is that? [2]. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not too dissimilar to this mosaic portrait which is all over the internet. Apparently it's at the Palazzo Doria Tursi in Genoa, but I haven't been able to pin down any more details, except here it is in situ. Alansplodge (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Marco Polo in the commercial does notspeak English (that is part of the gag)... However, I think he might be speaking modern Italian (which the real Polo would not). I also note that the commercial shows a pack llama standing near the pool. That isn't accurate for Polo. Blueboar (talk) 17:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's speaking modern Italian (quite clearly and simply; a first-year Italian student should be able to understand him).

On the other hand Italian hasn't changed nearly as much as English in the same time frame. Reading Dante is about as hard as reading Shakespeare. For the very simple things the character says, I'm not sure it would have changed at all. Pronunciation is another matter of course. --Trovatore (talk) 20:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, just occurred to me, though — I suppose Polo would have been speaking Venetian. Right, that's quite different. Dante wrote in Florentine, which is the dialect that by-and-large won out in modern Italian. --Trovatore (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that ad many times during the Olympics, and it made no sense. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The kids in the pool are shouting out his name, and Polo is confused because, despite his answers, he's being ignored. Then he realizes what the point of the game is and joins in. clpo13_(talk) 17:54, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now it makes sense. So what's up with the llama? Is that a new Geico icon? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:58, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per AdWeek:

...But the ad's true highlight is its llama—apparently Polo's ride to the party (which is in itself a bit of a surprise—it made it to South America sometime in the past 700 years, too). ("It's not surprising" is the theme) --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...Which I found surprising, but a little fact-checking finds (see llama): ...camelids spread to South America as part of the Great American Interchange (significantly more than 700 years ago) 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1821:CD59:E35A:CB68 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the actor, by the way? Or maybe I should ask: what more prominent actor does he resemble? —Tamfang (talk) 05:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Mazzeo is the actor, but I don't know which more prominent actor he reminds you of. ---Sluzzelin talk 11:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks vaguely like Judd Hirsch. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:25, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also Ron Silver. --Trovatore (talk) 21:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]