Humanities desk
< January 20	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 22 >

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.

January 21

Most ambitious wars of conquest throughout history?

Which wars of conquest throughout history could realistically be described as being the most ambitious? I could think of Nazi Germany's desire to conquer Lebensraum in the entire European part of the Soviet Union during World War II (Operation Barbarossa and the Eastern Front of World War II) as well as of the US's war with Mexico in 1846-1848 (the Mexican-American War) in order to acquire a lot of additional space for the US's growing population. There were also, of course, Saddam Hussein's wars in Iran and Kuwait, which were not territorially ambitious but were nevertheless ambitious in another war--specifically with him (and his Iraq) aiming to control a much larger percentage of the Middle East's and world's oil reserves, thus making it even easier for Iraq to become wealthy and to extort and blackmail other countries with its vast oil reserves. Anyway, though, which additional examples of this were there? Futurist110 (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Co-prosperity Sphere? Monroe Doctrine? Manifest Destiny? Russian colonization of Siberia? Cold War? Alexander the Great? Spanish colonization of the Americas? The Raj? Genghis Khan? Permanent revolution? War on Drugs? Star Wars franchise? Early Islam? Some of them may not be wars of conquest, though. --Error (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Japan's expansionism in Asia during World War II was certainly extremely ambitious, I'll give them that. The Monroe Doctrine was not an expansionist doctrine. I mentioned Manifest Destiny above. Was the Russian conquest of Siberia really achieved though only one war of conquest, or did it take more than one war for this to be successfully pulled off? The Cold War involved less conquest than you think, and mainly when conquest was involved it was to spread Communism to other countries as opposed to having existing countries conquer additional territory (unless it involved reunifying their homelands, as with Korea and Vietnam). Alexander the Great's conquests would certainly qualify for this, as would the Spanish colonization of the Americas. Just how much did Britain actually benefit from the British conquest of India? The Mongol conquests DEFINITELY qualify for this. Permanent revolution is more of an ideology than a conquest, and the war on drugs didn't actually involve conquering any countries--and neither did the Star Wars franchise (unless you're talking about fiction, which I definitely want to EXCLUDE here!). The Islamic conquests in the 7th and early 8th centuries DEFINITELY QUALIFY for this, though--as do Timur's conquests. Futurist110 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, though, I primarily wanted to focus on the last couple of centuries here. I know about the Scramble for Africa and the spread of colonialism and imperialism at various points in history, including in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but for the most part, this didn't actually involve a desire to conquer territory so that it could subsequently actually be directly annexed to the motherland/metropole–with of course French Algeria being a notable exception to this rule. Futurist110 (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The 1846-1848 U.S.-Mexican war was territorially ambitious, but as a military operation it was well-within U.S. capacities. Also the U.S. didn't directly challenge Britain (no war for the "54-40 or fight" slogan), and didn't annex the main densely-populated areas of Mexico, so the overall effect was to gain a lot of lightly-populated acres for a moderate military effort. The U.S. didn't risk too much, or attempt to "bite off more than it could chew", and so was not ambitious in that sense... AnonMoos (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Yeah, I was thinking of it being ambitious specifically in the territorial sense here--not necessarily in any other sense. Futurist110 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You failed to mention the Napoleonic Wars, but a large number of territories were added to France as a result (and organized as "départements" under the French model put in place by Napoleon's revolutionary predecessors), not to mention all the puppet states that were created. There wasn't an overall plan of conquest from the start, but there was a lot of annexation going on until the disastrous Russian campaign. Xuxl (talk) 23:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I thought of the Napoleonic Wars but declined to add them because I was unsure if all of these conquests were actually a part of some grand master plan by Napoleon or even pre-planned by Napoleon in any sense at all as opposed to these conquests simply being cases of Napoleon taking advantage of the moment to expand France and its sphere of influence as much as he could. Futurist110 (talk) 03:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The territorial expansion of France in the late 18th and early 19th century was not entirely due to Napoleon. The French Revolutionary Wars had already started expanding France's borders as early as 1792; Napoleon was still a lieutenant in the artillery corps at that time. Some of France's conquests were seen as expanding to France's "natural boundaries", the so-called Rhine-Rhone line, but a lot of it was done in the name of "exporting the revolutionary ideals", and the establishment of many of the sister republics predates Napoleon's rise to power. Many of Napoleon's own annexations to France were opportunistic and reactionary rather than any grand plan to expand the territory of France itself; rather it was seen as a way to insulate France from its enemies. --Jayron 32 13:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yep; correct! And to be honest, I'm not even sure that the expansion up to France's natural borders was actually pre-planned ahead of time as opposed to it being a case of French leaders and military commanders simply taking advantage of the moment. Futurist110 (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Who was Honoricus (the one eaten by worms)?

Investigating a previous question led me to the Martyrs Mirror and this intriguing illustration: Honoricus, koning der Vandalen, sterft, van de wormen gegeten, in het jaar 477 ("Honoricus, king of Vandals, dies, eaten from the worms, in the year 477"). The accompanying text in the book says:

"After this terrible tyrant had put to death... a countless number, God, after many plagues had been sent upon that country, awfully punished him: worms and lice so gnawed his flesh that his whole body became putrefied, one member dropping off after another, so that he was buried piece-meal, thus coming to a horrible and not less ignominious end — the evident vengeance of God for his tyranny against the Christians". [1]

We have a King Gaiseric of the Vandals, who died in AD 477, or his son Huneric or Honeric who died in 484 and was apparently rather friendly to Christians. The only modern reference I can find is Insects, Hygiene and History by James Ronald Busvine (p. 103), which repeats the death-by-lice story but calls him "Honoricus, King of the Vandals (384-423)". Those dates are the same as the Roman emperor Honorius who was not a Vandal. Can anyone solve the conundrum please? Alansplodge (talk) 01:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding any references to Gaiseric/Genseric in connection with this story, but two to his son Huneric,^{[2] [3]} so I think the name in your first quote is more trustworthy than the date. Both Huneric and Gaiseric, by the way, were Christians of the Arian persuasion who persecuted Athanasian Catholics. --Antiquary (talk) 11:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The date mismatches look like a piling up of misinformation from authors who are not historians. One should not expect any of the historical information in the Martyrs Mirror to be historically accurate. Undoubtedly, the name "Honoricus" is a Latinized version of the name "Huneric"; the year 477, when his father died, is the year of his accession to the throne. Our article mentions his persecution of "Roman Catholics". --Lambiam 11:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would be anachronistic. While the Catholic Church traces its roots that far back; before the East–West Schism of 1054, it makes no sense to speak of "Roman Catholics" as a distinct and meaningful designation. There would have been other church divisions of the time (like Arianism, noted above), but "Roman Catholic" in the 5th century makes no sense. --Jayron 32 13:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So what term would you use? Church of Rome perhaps? Alansplodge (talk) 14:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would use a term appropriate for the time period. If he was persecuting Christians in general, I would use the term "Christian". If he was persecuting Atanasian Christians, I would use the term "Athanasians" or "Athanasian Christians". "Church of Rome", again, had no meaning at the time. There was just the general "Christian" church, of which there were several different varieties which had various doctrinal and theological differences. Christianity doesn't become "Catholic" and "Orthodox" and "Protestant" and the like until after those schisms that created such distinctions. Catholic/Orthodox distinctions only make sense some 5 centuries after the time period in question. Prior to the 11th century, neither term has any meaning. --Jayron 32 16:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, though "Roman Catholic" is used in the article. Matt Deres (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And this Google search shows that the term "Catholics" is used to differentiate them from the Arian Christians in this era. But we take your point. Alansplodge (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also a fair point. I'm not saying people don't use the word. I'm just saying it's an anachronistic term, and also a bit chauvinistic as it presents the view that the (modern) Catholic church is the only one that goes back through history, and that other faiths are offshoots/split from it. There's an argument to be made that such a view is justifiable in terms of the Protestant Reformation, but less reasonably so on the Great Schism of 1054. --Jayron 32 19:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the Koine Greek of the time, καθολικός (katholikos) simply meant "general", "universal"; the phrases in the Nicene Creeds now translated as "holy catholic and apostolic Church" meant, more properly, "holy universal and apostolic Church". In present-day terminology one might say that Huneric persecuted Nicene Christians. --Lambiam 02:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If the "who" has been answered to your satisfaction, could we take a look at the what? Surely no amount of lice and/or parasitic worms would literally cause flesh to drop off? Dude in the picture is missing a hand and a foot - I don't think even leprosy does that. What are we talking about here, advanced gangrene? Necrotizing fasciitis? Matt Deres (talk) 17:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That illustration did not come from the coroner's report, but from the fantasy of the illustrator of a book published some 12 centuries later. The affliction was God's doing; surely the Lord Almighty was not restricted by the confines of medically recognized diseases. --Lambiam 03:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have tracked the origin of the story to an account by Victor Vitensis, a bishop who was persecuted by Huneric and its possible that the account of his death was added to the text at a later date. So the chances of this being an accurate medical account are slim, more a parable about God's vengeance. A 19th century book called Eaten of Worms discusses the possible medical explanations of this and similar accounts, notably of Herod Agrippa ("And immediately the angel of the Lord smote him, because he gave not God the glory: and he was eaten of worms, and gave up the ghost" [4]) and Philip II of Spain, which you can read at your leisure. Alansplodge (talk) 18:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note about Victor's account and the illustration to our article about Huneric. Many thanks to everyone for their contributions. Alansplodge (talk) 19:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if this guy was the inspiration for "The Worms Crawl In". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neat - thank you! Seems like some lovely bedtime reading! Matt Deres (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing on a Bible . . . or something else . . .

At the Inauguration yesterday, Kamala Harris swore her oath on a Bible. In reading through the article here on Wikipedia, I see she was exposed to both Christianity and to Hinduism and is a Baptist. If she were not of the Christian Faith, would she (or anyone else, for that matter) be able to use a different Sacred Text or something else to "swear" upon? For example, in my area, the Indigenous peoples are able to use an Eagle Feather to swear an oath. 209.91.188.70 (talk) 14:25, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Oath_of_office_of_the_president_of_the_United_States#Use_of_Bibles. As I understand it they don't have to swear on anything. The oath is the words that they say, and the constitution requires nothing more. --Wrongfilter (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The use of a bible is optional and personal. All a person has to do is to say the formal oath out loud. It can happen anywhere at any time and be administered by pretty much anybody. Many Christians will swear an oath on the bible because of the importance of the book to themselves, but they can swear on other books (John Quincy Adams, for example, swore his oath with his hand on a law book) or they can just state the oath. Ceremonially and traditionally, the oath is given on the steps of the Capitol by the Chief Justice of the United States just before noon on Inauguration Day. However, especially when someone becomes President unexpectedly, the oath may be given otherwise. For example, Lyndon Baines Johnson took the oath of office on Air Force One using President Kennedy's personal missal; he was sworn in by Sarah T. Hughes, a U.S. District judge. Calvin Coolidge was administered the oath by his father in the family parlor in Vermont.--Jayron 32 15:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And the U.S. Constitution very explicitly bars any religious requirement for officeholders, in the No Religious Test Clause. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 22:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It also explicitly allows people to open religious expression, per the Free Exercise Clause. Thus, while there can be no law that requires people to use a particular religious text to swear an oath upon, there can also be no law that prevents people from same. --Jayron 32 13:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the pertinence to the original question is that any law requiring officeholders to swear on a certain religious text, or forbidding them from swearing on a certain one, would plainly constitute a "religious test". --47.152.93.24 (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Ellison chose to be sworn in as a congressman putting his hand on a Quran. This was a cause of some consternation among some right-wingers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Quran in question having belonged to Thomas Jefferson, I believe. --47.152.93.24 (talk) 22:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For more on this, see Quran oath controversy of the 110th United States Congress. --Lambiam 01:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, very recently Jon Ossoff did not swear on a bible either ([5]).–XanonymusX (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Hebrew scriptures" suggests either a full Hebrew Bible or one or more parts of it. That counts as a Bible in my book (though perhaps not in that of some of the more benighted denizens of Republican yokeldom). Deor (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a little boy it was thought improper, indeed somewhat anti-Semitic, to apply the name of the Christian book to the Jewish holy books. One wouldn't, one hopes, call the Koran the "Moslem Bible", or the Guru Granth Sahib the "Sikh Bible". Using the word "Bible" in this way is elevating the Christian to the status of the norm, and treating other faiths' holy books as deviations from it. DuncanHill (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, no source I read about Ossoff’s swear-in ceremony used the word “bible”.–XanonymusX (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about this or this or this? (There are a number of other similar articles.) And, DuncanHill, the Bible is not exclusively a "Christian book"; the preponderance of it consists of precisely those "Jewish holy books" that you seem to think should be not be called a Bible. As the "Etymology" section of Bible says, "The Greek ta biblia (lit. 'little papyrus books') was 'an expression Hellenistic Jews used to describe their sacred books' (the Septuagint)." Deor (talk) 21:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps usage wherever and whenever you live differs from that where and when I lived as a little boy. I did not, and I suspect neither did you, grow up amongst Hellenistic Jews speaking Greek. DuncanHill (talk) 12:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jews I have known refer to the Old Testament as the Bible. They might call it other things, but one thing they wouldn't call it is the Old Testament, as that is blatantly a Christian term. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:46, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism calls the Pentateuch the Torah, and the whole shebang through to Books of Chronicles* is known by an acronym, Tanach. Note that the Jewish canon differs from those of other religions and of course WP:WHAAOE, see the table in Old_Testament#Content (*dunno why our article is titled "Books", rather than "Book") --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Check the "Structure" section for an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seen it, Interesting, thanks. I've never heard or read a reference to the plural of that, Samuel or Kings, perhaps because my reading is biased - in Hebrew each of them is referred to in the singular ("Sefer Dvirei Hayamim" etc). The ngrams for each are also persuasive that we've got it wrong. Here's Chronicles. Anyway, that discussion's for another place, another day. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:56, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible I use is the Revised Standard Version, which lists 1 Chronicles and 2 Chronicles. The Hebrew Bible does not break it into two books. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All Bibles split Samuel into I and II, but I've never heard anyone saying they're studying the "Books" of Samuel. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]