Humanities desk
< December 17	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 19 >

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

December 18

Turkish cross?

I am researching German bombing of the UK in the First World War. The use of Gotha bombers against London was called Operation Turkenkreuz, variously translated as "Turk's cross" or "Turkish cross". Question; is there such a thing as a Turkish cross and if so, what was its significance in Imperial Germany? Alansplodge (talk) 11:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you google-image Türkenkreuz you'll see lots of pictures of crucifixes and the like, many pre-dating World War I. I haven't found anything that explains why it was called Türkenkreuz, but given the religious implications hinted by those crucifixes, Germany might have considered this mission to be "righteous" from their viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:11, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See, for example, de:Raaberkreuz. As explained in that article, these wayside shrines were also called "Türkenkreuze". Their construction was decreed by Rudolf II after the Austrian re-appropriation of Castle Győr (Raab in German) in 1598 which had been occupied by the Ottoman Empire (see also Long Turkish War). ---Sluzzelin talk 12:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely at those Türkenkreuz images on Google, it seems like they are all or mostly "wayside shrines" as you've indicated. There's at least one in Wikipedia: thumb|right It was uploaded by Commons user Karl Gruber. He's German, but if he knows English maybe he could tell us more, include why it's called "Turk's" or "Turkish" - assuming that's what it means. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:21, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the de-wiki article and the Old German cited there, these crosses were rebuilt after being torn down by "bad people" as a sign of the victory over the Osman (Turk) forces. Unfortunately neither this article nor de:Kampfgeschwader der Obersten Heeresleitung explain why the operation was called this, although it might be related to the first use of aerial bombs in the Italo-Turkish War. Regards So Why 13:46, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly User:Sluzzelin, I think I must have mis-spelt my German Google search as it drew a blank. The de.Wikipedia entry is confirmed by this page which Google has translated as:

'A very strange and interesting speciality are the so-called Raaberkreuze, also commonly called Turkenkreuze. The Raab fortress was in the 16th century the main bastion against the Turks and a key point for Austria. It was therefore considered a tremendous disaster when in 1594 this fortress fell into the hands of the Turks. The general rejoicing was all the greater, when it was conquered again in March of the year 1598 by Baron Adolf von Schwarzenberg. Emperor Rudolf II issued a decree on April 25 of the same year that the stainern [?] or other cross and Marterl pillars on all roads, passports and separations [border posts?] to be replaced within two months with a painted crucifix and with the inscription either in the stone or on a metal plate: "Praise God to the Lord and thanks".'

German operation names often alluded to historic and nationalistic names, so this makes a lot of sense. Alansplodge (talk) 14:10, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These were the same Germans who told the Turks that the Kaiser had converted to Islam and declared jihad on the Allies. See Peter Hopkirk's On Secret Service East of Constantinople: The Great Game and the Great War, and indeed Buchan's Greenmantle. DuncanHill (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; however there was a good deal of doublespeak on all sides when dealing with prospective allies, viz Britain's role in inspiring the Arab Revolt for example. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I have added a brief note to our Wayside cross article, so that Turkenkreuze should show up in the unlikely event that anybody searches for it. Alansplodge (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anatolia

When did Anatolia become more Turkic than Greek?--KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Anatolia article: "The Turkification of Anatolia began under the Seljuk Empire in the late 11th century..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:16C:7A91:B68E:A1BB (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Battle of Manzikert in 1071 was the tipping point; "The result of this disastrous defeat was, in simplest terms, the loss of the Eastern Roman Empire's Anatolian heartland" according to the Aftermath section of our article. Alansplodge (talk) 17:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Before 1071 A.D., the center of the Greek-speaking region of the Byzantine Empire was actually in Anatolia (much more than in areas which are part of Greece today). This is discussed in the book Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World by Nicholas Ostler... -- AnonMoos (talk) 03:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any rules or etiquette against segregating POWs by rank and splitting up units?

So each POW camp has a section with only enemy privates where the lowest-ranking unit and commander anyone has in common is a fairly high one not a low one like company or lieutenant, a camp section with only corporals (same thing) and so on and they can't talk through the fence to other sections or bang Morse Code or any other contact. So there's no one to give orders (besides voting a leader or something, everyone's rank being the same and all) and they have no camaraderie from fighting together or knowing each other. If people disagree about how or whether to try to escape they'd be more likely to bicker with the leader if they're the same rank. This doesn't seem very evil but I don't know all the treaties and etiquette for POWs. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to the Third Geneva Convention, there is a link at the bottom of the page you can follow to read the exact wordings. Scanning, can see couple references to rank but you would want to read more thoroughly.70.67.222.124 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This purports to show the text of Article 4 of the United States Military Code of Conduct. The relevant part is "The senior POW (whether officer or enlisted) in the POW camp or among a group of POWs shall assume command according to rank without regard to Military Service. ... U.S. policy on POW camp organization requires that the senior military POW assume command." Whether or not it is the actual text, it makes sense that seniority would be used to decide between POWs of the same rank. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

During the Second World War Germany operated separate camps for officers (Oflag) and for other ranks (Stalag). In any camp, the senior person would have been expected to act as commanding officer - which in the case of a Stalag would have meant the seniot non-commissioned officer (probably a Sergeant-Major). Britain made the same distinction for German POWs in the UK. Wymspen (talk) 15:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever operates the POW camp also has some interest in maintaining order and exercising effective control. That implies allowing for an effective command structure in the camp. It's a trade-off between easier oversight and control on the one side vs. a small increase in risk of coordinated resistance or escape. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]