Humanities desk
< July 10	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 12 >

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.

July 11

When did land travel become extremely popular?

When did land travel become extremely popular? For instance, here is a scenario for you--let's say that someone wants to get from Marseille/Marseilles to Dunkirk/Dunkerque (both of which are located in France nowadays). Nowadays the best way to do this would probably be by land--either by car or by train--or, alternatively, by plane/air. 100 years ago, the best way to do this would have probably still been by land--especially considering that air travel doesn't appear to have been an option yet 100 years ago. However, what about 200 years ago or 300 years ago or 400 years ago or 500 years ago? Would one have still traveled on land--either on horseback or by carriage--back then or would one have traveled by sea to get from Marseilles to Dunkirk back then?

Any thoughts on this? Futurist110 (talk) 00:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Top of head answer: this is going to depend a lot on the development of a road system in a particular country. Clear back in Roman times, much of Europe actually had pretty good roads (and not much danger from brigands), but for over a millennium that steadily deteriorated, bottoming out in different places, from what I've read, anywhere between the 16th & 19th centuries (when depends on where).

Were any countries able to quickly revive and restore their road systems after the collapse of the Roman Empire--perhaps within a time-frame of a couple of centuries? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There really are no "countries" to speak of in Europe for nearly a millennium after that. There are occasional periods when some monarch unites a region (Charlemagne being the most prominent). I don't think any of them were particularly big as road-builders, but someone might have been at some time. - Jmabel | Talk 00:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, especially in terms of the 19th century, don't forget canals. In many places, those were actually the best way to get around for a couple of generations before railways came in.

Were all canals actually navigable by boats and ships, though? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not by ocean-going ships unless the canal was built for that specific purpose, but there were canal boats. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic Ocean was always a tough one, though, so from Marseille to Dunkirk, land travel would have won out a lot sooner than, say from Marseille to Venice or Dunkirk to Gdansk. - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. Also, what about from Bordeaux to Dunkirk? Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "popular" are you talking about commerce or vacations? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Any form of travel, really. Futurist110 (talk) 00:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a function of economics to a great extent. If you look at the westward migration in America, much of it was driven by economic necessity. Demand drove the technology, and vice versa. Hence railroads, and more railroads; and then cars and highways, and more cars and more highways. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Railways. At least in Europe. This began around 1830, with great expansion during the railway boom of the 1840s.

Before this, people didn't travel. For statistically significant proportions of "people" and "travel". Too awkward, too expensive, too little need to. Of course, some people travelled. A handful were carters, drovers etc. who travelled all the time, as an occupation. Some were business people, or their agents, who needed to travel between locations. Even the poor drifted slowly (usually on foot) in search of work. But travel was generally rare.

Canals pre-dated the roads, but didn't ever become a widespread means of passenger transport. Even the railways took a decade (or longer, depending how you count) before they started carrying passengers rather than coal (see Swansea and Mumbles Railway and the Stockton and Darlington Railway).

Roads were in a poor state and weren't improved enough to become a means of mass transport until after the railways. Although turnpikes had improved the process of road travel by the public stagecoaches rather earlier, even though it was still a rare thing to do.

Coastal sea travel was popular, although hazardous. Before the canals it was the standard way of moving heavy freight and the passenger traffic was in some ways a better way to travel than by road. However before the establishment of lighthouses, navigation close inshore was a far more dangerous business that sailing far out to sea, with much less risk of wreck. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This has a lot to do with geography and development. I was a little surprised recently to discover how much travel, and particularly trade still depends on boats along the coastal areas of the Top End of the Northern Territory of my "advanced" country, Australia. Away from major highways, a lot of the roads are impassable in The Wet, so it makes sense. HiLo48 (talk) 01:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a child, I loved documentaries on "exotic" Australia (commonly available through Hellenic Broadcasting Corporation broadcasts in the 1980s and 1990s). Most of them did mention that navigating Australia by land is either impossible or extremely dangerous, and that the country largely depends on ships and airplanes for transportation of people and goods. Has anything changed since then? Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Land travels always were the main mean of transport, unless special case of relatively safe seafaring (Mediterranean or baltic/hanseatic travel, for instance), second only to inland waterways when available (but you have to pay the transport). eg: Camino de Santiago, silk road. Gem fr (talk) 07:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"especially considering that air travel doesn't appear to have been an option yet 100 years ago." Wrong premise. 100 years ago translates to 1919. Airlines had already been established, starting with DELAG (1909-1935), Aircraft Transport and Travel (1916-1921), Deutsche Luft-Reederei (1917-1926), Aéropostale (1918-1933), KLM (1919-), Avianca (1919-), Handley Page Transport (1919-1924), Société Générale des Transports Aériens (1919-1933), and Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes (1919-1923). Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But hardly "popular"; many early passenger aircraft carried less than 6 passengers and the cost of a flight from London to Paris was £5, [1] at a time when a skilled worker earned less than £2 per week. [2] Alansplodge (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the United States, passenger air travel was a fairly narrow niche market for people with cash to spend and willing to endure a significant degree of risk and/or discomfort, until the Boeing 247 was introduced in 1933 (soon followed by the Douglas DC-3 and others). I don't know anything about most of the companies mentioned in Dimadick's comment above, but the names of at least two of them ("Aéropostale" and "Compagnie des Messageries Aériennes") suggest that they were founded mainly to carry airmail -- one of the main commercial applications of airplanes in the 1918-1933 period. Also, passenger air travel didn't really begin to supplant transatlantic ocean liners until around 1960... AnonMoos (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fernand Braudel is very good on what travel meant in Europe in the 1500s. Several chapters of The Mediterranean are devoted to this. - Jmabel | Talk 00:25, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which ethnic group(s) lived in the St. Petersburg area before Peter I built it?

Which ethnic group(s) lived in the St. Petersburg area before Russian Tsar Peter the Great built it? Futurist110 (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrian Finns. See also Ingria, Izhorians and Votes. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Futurist110 (talk) 06:29, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That sure was a smart move by Peter I. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REFUND

I have a problem with the artist Vito Bongiorno's page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vito_Bongiorno the page has been inserted in draft for lack of sources

I have sources to add the credibility and importance of the artist

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Vito_Bongiorno

Can anyone help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francesco devi (talk • contribs) 11:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Francesco devi, since you already have sources I don't know how much help we can be here, but I've requested the friendly people at the Wikipedia Teahouse to come over and help you out. They're good at explaining processes. You can also go here and speak with them directly. Good luck, 70.67.193.176 (talk) 15:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco devi I saw the note at the Teahouse. I made some minor improvements to the article, but can't find English language coverage of the artist. Hopefully others who speak Italian can find some coverage about him such as biographical profiles that aren't just descriptions of his art. (Please remember to sign your posts on talk pages by typing four keyboard tildes like this: ~~~~. Or, you can use the [ reply ] button, which automatically signs posts.) TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

London Magazine

Hi,

I don't think I've ever actually used Ref Desk before, so apologies if not within your remit.

I was hoping someone might have a London Magazine subscription or find somewhere else online to be able to see the full Jun-July 2005 copy the one with its headers given here, this pdf has a small fragment.

We're looking for the Lichtig review on Brian Howell - there's one source already but another would be needed to legitimately delete the current PROD.

Cheers Nosebagbear (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sup, @Nosebagbear: Best place for that kind of thing is the resource exchange, which you will find filled with friendly and happy-to-help types with access to most sources any Wikipedian could ever need :) ——SerialNumber54129 11:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please identify a portrait with an inscription in Hebrew

A friend was given this portrait, made of brass. The subject is a bearded man and there is an inscription in Hebrew below the image. The back has a small "Made in Israel" stamp in English. My friend has no Jewish or Israeli connection at all. What does the inscription say, who is the man and what is his "claim to fame"? (I uploaded the photo to the Flickr site instead of here as I have no idea of the portrait's copyright status). Thanks Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my Hebrew's not the best, but the four letters in the second row say "Herzl" so I guess that's who it is.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of his quotes. "Im tirtzu, ain zo agada" or "If you will it, it is not a dream".--Wehwalt (talk) 12:10, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wehwalt, so it's basically an Israeli political icon. I will send the quote translation and bio article to my friend. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In Israel, Theodor Herzl is considered a kind of visionary founding father. Considering he died in 1904, even before the Balfour declaration or the establishment of the British Mandate, he's not really a "political icon" in the sense of being directly implicated in the politics of the modern state of Israel, AnonMoos (talk) 16:22, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AnonMoos, no I meant the brass portrait itself is a type of icon, but depicting a politically significant person instead of a Russian saint. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Brady Bunch type of situation

Let's say that we have a Brady Bunch type of situation: mother has three biological daughters; father has three biological sons; mother and father marry to create a blended family of six children / step-children. My question: by this marriage, does the father have any "legal rights" to the three daughters? Is he legally their "father"? Or is he simply their "step-father"? And do any "legal rights" attach to the the role of "step-father"? So, for example, are the three step-daughters considered "heirs" of the step-father? Or, upon the father's death, he has only three heirs -- his three biological sons -- plus the wife (if she survives him)? If the step-father wants the "full legal rights" (as relates to the three step-daughters), does he have to actually legally adopt the three step-daughters? I was wondering about this sort of thing. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guarantee this is going to vary by country/state. Matt Deres (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, true. I am referring to the USA. Which I thought was implicit in the question, since I was referring to the character of Mike Brady in the Brady Bunch scenario. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is still going to vary by state. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's obvious. I am not seeking a 50-state analysis. I am seeking generalities. Or examples. Again, I thought obvious. Guess I need to spell out all minutiae, when I ask a question. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When you write "I am referring to the USA" that is not minutia. Again there is no way to generalize since it is going to vary by state. I'd have thought that was obvious. MarnetteD|Talk 19:07, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think we have here an American who is unaware of the global reach of great American exports like The Brady Bunch. HiLo48 (talk) 23:18, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You all got even by sending us Jacko. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True. My sincerest apologies. HiLo48 (talk) 02:37, 12 July 2019 (UTC) [reply]

I was referring to a very specific character (Mike Brady) in a very specific TV show (The Brady Bunch). Implicit in all of that is the USA. What did you infer from the question, that I was asking about the state of affairs in Pakistan or Gabon? Seriously? On a side note, isn't the public education system in the USA simply wonderful? Never ceases to amaze us all. Wow. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. You weren't. You very clearly referred to a situation "like" the Brady Bunch. You did not refer specifically to the Brady Bunch. You could greatly simplify your question by asking if Mike Brady on the Brady Bunch had a legal responsibility for the girls. Yes. In that specific setting, Mike Brady was responsible for the girls and would be responsible for child support if they divorced. The catch is that it is never revealed exactly how much money the mother and father make. So, it could possibly go the other way, with the mother paying child support for the boys. But, in the 70s, it was extremely rare and nearly impossible for a man to get a ruling for child support from a woman. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 17:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making my own point for me, and contradicting your own point. Asking about someone "like" Mike Brady is the same exact thing as asking about someone "similarly situated" as Mike Brady. There is no difference. Hence, the question implies USA. Again, thanks for making my point and contradicting your own point. Or, does the word "like" mean something different to you? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, in general, step- have no right nor obligation to each other, and are considered strangers for legal purpose. But they will have indirect obligations through the spouse link, or the fact that, say, they are those with property rights of the home; all this may even be part of a marriage contract, which certainly can provide some "you will take care of my previous children as if yours" clause. This is really general, and local statutes may have different views, as pointed out by Matt Deres. Gem fr (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Gem fr. But, Gem fr, it's gonna vary by state. Didn't you know that? So, why give any answers at all to the original question? Because, you know, it's gonna vary by state. (As if the "varies by state" theme is dispositive of the issue.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As with the rules for license plate numbers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in For the first time in New York, non-biological parents have legal rights. Alansplodge (talk) 21:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have Stepfamily#Legal_status, sourced to this, an American resource. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 23:57, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In a fictional family, anything can happen. In practice, there's the matter of whether the step-parents adopt the kids, and such as that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, actual answer. Joseph A. Spadaro, of course it varies but state, but what you're looking for are state-level statutes usually named something like "Intestate Succession". As usual, I will use California as an example, which has relevant statutes in sections 6100 - 6806 of the Probate Code. It is made very clear in Division 6, Part 2, Chapter 1, that inheritance priority is given to the spouse and issue of the decedent, and not step-children. Only if the decedent has not stated who inherits, and has no surviving issue, parents, spouse, grandparents, aunts, uncles, siblings or first-cousins are the step-children entitled by statute to inheritance. However, at this point we have to make sure we know how the State of California defines "issue". Sections 21101 - 21118 make it clear by exception that stepchildren are not automatically included in the group "issue", but children may be. So how does California define "children"? This is provided in Chapter 2, which shows that it is normally required that a child be natural (with some exceptions), or be legally adopted. Of course the exceptions have exceptions and the howevers have howevers, and an exception is made for stepchildren that had a parent-child relationship with their stepparent that began during the child's minor years, and "It is established by clear and convincing evidence that the foster parent or stepparent would have adopted the person but for a legal barrier." So short of adoption, there is that one narrow hole through which an unadopted stepchild could potentially claim full inheritance rights of a child. This same statute also explicitly recognizes but does not define the common law concept of "equitable adoption" (also known as adoption by estoppel, virtual adoption, and de facto adoption). This is essentially the adoption version of common law marriage, where a court may recognize as an adopted child someone whom the decedent had been treating as his child. What that means, unfortunately you can't just look it up in a statute, but there are court decisions and law review articles you could look up on it, of course varying by state once again. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Someguy1221: Thanks for a reply that is actually helpful and well-thought out. As opposed to one that is unhelpful and dismissive. Sometimes, people on these Reference Desks just want to hear themselves talk, and offer nothing of substance to the discussion. And -- typically -- it's the usual suspects. Then we wonder why there is a perennial proposal to rid Wikipedia of these Reference Desks. Thanks again for your reply. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:57, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So it's going to depend on at least a couple of factors: (1) whether the stepfather adopts the children; and/or (2) the wording of the stepfather's will, if any. If he failed to make out a will, that's Someguy's scenario. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:17, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any parties more left than >50% their electorate with conservative in their name?

Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:23, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

wot? Gem fr (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does a party with conservative in their name in a way that can be construed as self-identifying (i.e. Conservative Peoples Action Party but not Anticonservative Party or Conservatives Suck Party) ever end up being left wing by drift of the party or drift of the spectrum or by the name being fake in the first place? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with this question is that there is no objective way to quantify the "leftness" either of a party or of the electorate. So there is no practical way to think about it. --69.159.11.113 (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Traditionally that's a UK Commonwealth type of name. No idea what's going to happen to the UK Conservatives next election. The current AU government afaict is politically conservative but may not be using that name. The US Republicans might have a majority of the electorate at any given moment but they've never used the name. In the US, only minor parties have used it, just like "liberal". I don't know of any party anywhere calling itself "centrist" but that seems to be an influential ideology in many parties regardless. 173.228.123.207 (talk) 04:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was the "Zentrum" in Weimar Germany. AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sagittarian Milky Way -- if you want a discrepancy between a party's ideology and its name, then in various countries at various times there were parties with "Radical" in their names which were not particularly radical in the ordinary meaning of the word... AnonMoos (talk) 04:32, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Another discrepancy is pretty much all left parties, which dumped the working class issues and materialism, and instead adopted as their core belief a mix of the most far-right, reactionary, extremism known as "environmentalism", and concern about complete aliens most of the time not even in the country (aka colonial paternalism), and elitism (you rather expect in the right side of the political spectrum), all of them combined with a trust in The Crown to always do better than the People, so a desire to empower it as much as possible (which is just the very opposite of where the left was born). So, left, right... what does that mean anyway? Gem fr (talk) 08:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A possibility is the Conservative Party (Norway), which is on the right in Norway, but might be considered left-of-centre if it were suddenly dropped into the US system due to its support for Norway's extensive welfare system. Alansplodge (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it was referred to their electorate. Not USA's. If you drop this party into US system, do it for their electorate too Gem fr (talk) 07:58, 13 July 2019 (UTC).[reply]

"I don't know of any party anywhere calling itself "centrist" " Greece used to have the Centre Union (1963-1974), created from a merger of Venizelist parties. It was a major party in the 1960s, though marginalized during the Greek military junta of 1967–1974. It was replaced by the Centre Union – New Forces (1974-1976) and then by the Union of the Democratic Centre (1976-2012), neither of which had much electoral success. The remnants of the Union joined Syriza in 2012, which was a much larger party. In the last few years, the most notable centrist party is the Union of Centrists (1992-). It has participated in 11 Parliamentary elections, and has only once managed to gain entrance in the Greek Parliament (from 2015 to 2019). Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

+ the small Centrist Alliance in France. - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When did they stop making piers longer on Manhattan?

The newest and outermost layer that's about 800 feet long and touching the pierhead line allowed by the Army Corps of Engineers, not the long gone ones from centuries ago that are now inside the ring road (West Side Highway/West Street/South Street etc).

When did they start filling in the water between some of them or removing piers? The piers follow a regular spacing and some have been removed (condemned for rotting?) while in other places the land was extended and stuff built on the new land like buildings, parks and so on. Even entire neighborhoods like Battery Park City. I know they started doing this by the Great Depression. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]