Humanities desk
< August 31	<< Aug \| September \| Oct >>	September 2 >

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.

September 1

How potent of a force was republicanism in Europe before WWI?

How potent of a force was republicanism in Europe before World War I?

I know that France, Switzerland, and--starting from 1910--Portugal were republics. However, what about the European countries that were still monarchies before World War I? Were there large-scale republican movements in any of these countries? Or was it almost universally believed in these countries that their monarchies should be maintained (with or without reducing the powers of these monarchs)?

Any thoughts on this?

I know that republicanism really caught on in Europe after the World Wars, but I'm wondering if this trend would have still occurred if it wasn't for the World Wars. Futurist110 (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Britain had a republic in the mid-17th century (per Republicanism in the United Kingdom); and, Spain had its First Spanish Republic in 1873–1874. 2606:A000:1126:4CA:0:98F2:CFF6:1782 (talk) 05:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I knew about Britain (Oliver Cromwell and all that) but forgot about Spain. Futurist110 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

see Dutch Republic. Blueboar (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Republic however, had little to do with republicanism, at least initially; the Dutch opted for a republic simply because there was no suitable candidate to become monarch. After driving out the Spanish, the Dutch provinces offered the kingship of the Netherlands to both Elizabeth I of England and Henry III of France, but both declined. - Lindert (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Dutch Republic also had a hereditary stadtholder--something which makes it much different from republics such as the United States of America. Futurist110 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the Republic of Letters. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.15.178 (talk) 08:36, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never heard of this topic before. Thus, thanks for sharing this! Futurist110 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In which case (as, although it's straying from the concept of Republicanism, there is a Republic of Letters connection) you might also be interested in The Invisible College. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.212.15.178 (talk) 21:07, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional monarchy may be a relevant article. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Futurist110 (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three bits for you: (1) the Dutch opted for a republic simply because there was no suitable candidate to become monarch Same with France: there was a dispute in 1871 over who should become king, and the only way it was resolved was by settling on a pretender who ended up refusing the throne under the terms that it was offered, so they re-compromised on nobody. See French Third Republic#Parliamentary monarchy. (2) Bits of Germany were a republic. All the states of pre-1866 Germany survived until the end of the imperial period (aside from a few that fought Prussia in 1866 and got annexed as a result), including the republican free cities of Lübeck, Hamburg, and Bremen. (3) Another fully sovereign republic in 1914: San Marino. As far as I can tell, the only other part of Europe with no monarch at the time was Albania, and that's because there was chaos. Albania during World War I was a failed state, a mix of anarchy in some regions and foreign occupation in the rest. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Romans were extremely passionate about republicanism for about 5 centuries, really, very passionate, until awfully suddenly, (about 5 years later) they weren't. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC) (Warning: gross simplification). --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 22:44, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that even then, the Romans kept using a lot of the trappings of a republic. For example, the autocratic ruler using the title Imperator (implying a military commander taking charge for the good of the state), rather than Rex (a king, which was associated with tyranny). Iapetus (talk) 07:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Russian Republic 1917 borders

I'm going through Russia Goes to the Polls: The Election to the All-Russian Constituent Assembly, 1917, working on the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917 and wanted to check a bit on the administrative borders at the time. Overall, the electoral district seems to match the subdivisions of the Russian Empire (such as File:Subdivisions of the Russian Empire in 1897 (governorate level, uyezd level and localities).svg). Where there any significantly transfers of territories between governorates during 1917? --Soman (talk) 05:59, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I know that Kholm Governorate was created in 1912, but I don't think that any guberniyas (governorates) were created in Russia after 1912. Futurist110 (talk) 21:14, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Altay (from southern part of Tomsk) and Bukey (from eastern part of Astrakhan) governorates were created in 1917. The former is present in the Election Regulations, the latter is probably implicitely mentioned as part of Astrakhan governorate with nomadic population. There were other changes sinc 1897. Шурбур (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. We find a Caspian or Pricaspian electoral district in 1917, "September 23, the Oblast Election Commission set up 52 electoral precincts: Maloderbetovsky ulus 10 precincts, Manychsky ulus 10, Yandyko-Mochaznyi ulus 7, Ikitsokhuro-Kharakhusovksy 12, 9 precincts in the uluses of Bagaotsokhuro-Khoshoutovsky and Erketenevsky and 4 precinct in the Kuma aimak of the Terek oblast (which initially had not been planned to be part of the Caspian Electoral District)". Would this be the same as the Bukey? (@@Шурбур:) --Soman (talk) 11:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were Kalmyk uluses, in the south-western part of Astrakhan governorate. Bukey (Bukeyevskaya) governorate included the lands of the Bukey Horde, populated by nomad Kazakhs, to the east from the Volga. See the map (in blue): File:Zapadnye_gubernii_Rossii_1917.png. Шурбур (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, would Bukeyevskaya gov have corresponded to the electoral district named "Horde (Ryn Peski area)"? --Soman (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems so, in the Regulations Orda (Ordynskiy) district is defined as part of Astrakhan governorate populated by nomad Kazakhs of the Inner (=Bukey) Horde. According to the Brokhaus, Ryn Sands was synonymous to the name of the Bukey Horde for the locals. Шурбур (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cabin crew announcements

Why are there so many variations on cabin crew announcements? For example even within the same airline for departure announcements I’ve heard everything from “cabin crew boarding complete”, “cabin attendants doors for departure and cross check” “cabin crew doors to automatic and cross check” to “cabin attendants door armed” etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.70.170 (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is no mandated standard. Nanonic (talk) 21:08, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Next time you fly, you could ask them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There would be different cabin crew actions required on different models of planes. HiLo48 (talk) 23:03, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be an interesting question to ask. As in, do they have a script memorized, or are they kind of "winging" it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:43, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Boarding complete" announcement does not mean the same thing as the "Arm doors and cross-check" announcement. The former indicates that the last expected passenger has entered the aircraft and the cabin crew can start to shut the overhead bins and settle passengers down (and it also means that passengers can leap toward better seats although the last passengers to board may still be working their way down the aisle). The latter instructs the cabin crew to set the doors so that opening them will inflate the life rafts, and to check that this has been done on the other side. Hayttom (talk) 06:21, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Related question: as a frequent flyer, I've noticed slight changes in the timing of some announcements. For example, on landing the announcement "cabin crew, doors to manual and cross-check" used to be done at the same time or just after the engines were switched off and the plane reached a complete standstill. Now it is done just before the aircraft comes to a halt. Any idea why this change was made? --Viennese Waltz 07:03, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I flew anywhere, back in December 1974 when it looked to be safe to return to the U K (if I'd known about the IRA bombing campaign that year I might not have come back) the only announcements ever made were "fasten/unfasten seat belts" (at take off/landing or when encountering turbulence), or information such as "we are crossing the equator", disembarkation information at refuelling stops and weather information for an approaching destination. There might also be announcements about the completion of landing cards. When were all these modern announcements introduced? For those who have been following the saga of announcements on London buses Special:Permalink/837698934#Bugged they are now trialling a simple "this bus is ready to depart" after the doors are closed. 86.133.58.87 (talk) 13:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]