Humanities desk
< May 5	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 7 >

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.

May 6

Ottoman claims on Central Asia

Did the Ottoman Empire ever make a claim on Central Asia?

I would think that this would have been extremely unlikely before 1918 due to the Ottoman Empire's weakened position; however, once Russia collapsed in 1918, a brief opportunity for the Ottomans and other Central Powers oepned up. I know that the Ottomans conquered Baku in late 1918 (before their loss in World War I compelled them to withdraw), but I was also wonder if the Ottomans ever made a claim to Central Asia as well. The logic behind such a claim would be Pan-Turkism--as in, an ideology with a belief that all Turkic peoples must unite. Indeed, Enver Pasha (one of the leaders of the Ottoman Empire during WWI) was a staunch believer in this ideology and even supported the Basmachi in Central Asia in their rebellion against Russian rule after the end of World War I:

Pan-Turkism#History

Anyway, did the Ottoman Empire ever lay a claim to Central Asia? Logistics would certainly be a challenge, but the Ottomans could have traveled to Central Asia either by sea or through northern Persia/Iran. Futurist110 (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that Pan-Turkism "emerged during the 1880s" -- during much of the Ottoman period, the word "Türk" was kind of an insult, used by urban elites to refer disparagingly to uneducated rural/provincial types.

However, I have an old William H. McNeill book which says that in 1659, the Ottomans launched an attack across the Black Sea (which was almost an Ottoman lake at that time) with the objective of driving the Russians from the lower Volga, and then uniting with the central Asian khanates to attack Persia from the rear. However, this did not go well, and the Ottomans never attempted anything like it again. Apparently the failure of this expedition, combined with Russian expansion from the west, and the inertness of the Khanate of Bukhara (which didn't seem interested in or capable of expanding its influence over wider steppe areas, and by its location blocked other Muslim states from doing so), resulted in Islam receding from significant areas in modern Kazakhstan and Mongolia (and areas in between), while forms of Tibetan Buddhism correspondingly expanded... AnonMoos (talk) 08:41, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Wikipedia has anything at all on this 1659 Ottoman expedition. The Battle of Konotop was probably connected to it (at least from the Ottoman point of view), but our article relates it almost exclusively to the Russian-Polish war and internal Ukrainian politics, even though the Crimean Khanate had the single biggest army in the battle... AnonMoos (talk) 09:23, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

working to protect children

Do Drug Abuse Resistance Education and Students Against Destructive Decisions work together in helping protect children against various bad things?2604:2000:7104:2F00:5809:4B7F:C87E:43D8 (talk) 07:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to have any direct connection, but you might be interested in Network for Good, e.g.: "Drugs in America — Hope in a Nationwide Crisis". www.networkforgood.org. —2606:A000:1126:28D:9C3C:E8AA:C8E4:28F1 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NATO Code of Tanzania: TZA or TZN?

With STANAG 1059, the NATO replaced their former country codes with new ones in sync with the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3. However, many sources agree that the NATO country code for Tanzania is still TZN, not TZA as in the ISO-Code: Find examples at revolvy.com, github.com, lanederdaten.de. But the CIA World Factbook lists NATO code TZA, as is in the ISO-code. And why would the NATO keep that one code different? Which is correct? --KnightMove (talk) 22:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who's the longest "reigning" pretender of a republic in European history?

Whether they claimed the (no longer existing) throne or not. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:00, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Would Otto von Habsburg count for this? His father Charles I of Austria died young in 1922 while Otto himself died a whopping 89 years later in 2011 (at the age of 98; he was only nine when his father died). Thus, if he didn't give up his claim to the Austro-Hungarian thrones in 2007, he could have been the claimant to these thrones for a whopping 89 years! (Otto himself never actually reigned since his father was overthrown four years before he died.) Futurist110 (talk) 05:48, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's exactly the kind of thing I was wondering about. 89 years is pretty damn long. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK; good. Anyway, Yeah, my own gut feeling is that Otto von Habsburg has set the record for this. Not everyone even lives to age 89 or above--let alone been a claimant to a throne for that long!

Your only hope would be to find some other extremely long-lived heirs whose parent died either during their childhood or before they were born. For instance, a posthumous heir to a royal claimant who lives to age 89 or above (meaning the posthumous heir--rather than his parent--has to live to age 89 or above) would qualify for this. Futurist110 (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A pretend monarch? Or a pretend republic? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:48, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinks: Pretender, List of republics. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 00:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if Louis XIV of France or even Bernhard the Bellicose of Lippe (Holy Roman Empire) have been "beaten" by any of the heads of dynasties affected by demonarchization. Some heads of these dynasties have disavowed any stolen birthright to rule I believe so maybe they wouldn't technically be pretenders, though perhaps such private citizens might have a few reactionary supporters who consider them the rightful king anyway. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:05, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the words "republic" and "throne" don't go together too well, and obscure the meaning of your question. However, there were governments-in-exile of Poland and the Baltics (Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia) from WW2 until ca. 1990... AnonMoos (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, they kinda do, historically. If you look at the meaning of terms like "republic", they have shifted over time. There was a time when political theorists considered elective monarchies to be republican in nature; the Federalist Papers, for example, hold up the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with its elective monarchy to be a republic; the difference being whether or not a particular state passed executive power through elections or heredity. The Polish throne was decidedly NOT hereditary, especially after the Jagellion dynasty died out. Though they called their ruler a "King", it was not functionally a different arrangement than existed in, for example, the Republic of Venice, which has a "Duke" (Doge of Venice) that was elected under similar conditions. The idea that a republic (a state where the leadership is elected rather than inherited) and a democracy (a state where political power comes from the consent and will of the governed) must be one-in-the-same is not true. Even today, you have states like North Korea, which is essentially monarchical, though they avoid the terminology of a monarchy, and thus we treat it like a republic. It's not so black-and-white. --Jayron 32 11:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

North Korea is a monarchical totalitarian republic. Similarly, Syria is a monarchical republic--albeit probably less totalitarian than North Korea. Ditto for Azerbaijan. Futurist110 (talk) 02:38, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By far the best known pretenders to an elective monarchy were the Antipopes, but no one else has mentioned elective monarchy pretenders in this thread... AnonMoos (talk) 21:18, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There has been at least one elective monarchy king who was an anti-pretender (He was the king, but pretended he wasn't after a while), that being Henryk Walezy of Poland. --Jayron 32 23:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the confusion. What about human beings, not governments in exile? For each monarchy that ended there was a human who lost the crown and a human (often first son) who would've got the crown if the monarchy was restored right before the deposed human died and another human that would've got the crown if the monarchy was restored right before his predecessor died and so on. Wikipedia even has lists of these humans where you can look up who'd be say King of Prussia in any of the years from demonarchization to now. Did any of these (probably rich and more likely to live long) people live >29,818 days after the previous guy in the chain died? Then if they or their dynasty hadn't been deposed they would've been the longest reigning European monarch in recorded history. Louis the XIV of France is I believe the longest reigning European monarch without a Holy Roman Emperor-type guy above him and he only reigned 72.3 years so he's the one to beat if vassal states are excluded. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is wrong with Otto von Habsburg listed above? I think that's the record we're trying to beat based on your criteria, not Louis XIV... --Jayron 32 11:11, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's wrong with him, Futurist supplied that after I replied to AnonMoos. So you're right it's now 89 years. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 12:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]