Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 December 5

= December 5 =

Somalia Arab League?
How Somalia is an Arab nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.64.54.251 (talk) 00:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Nearly all Somalis speak Somali and are Sunni Muslims, so most also speak some Arabic. For historical and religious reasons, Somalia broadly aligns itself with the Arab world. Xn4  00:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * They are largely Islamic, and have had close contact with Arabs since trade routes in the Indian Ocean were opened in the early middle ages. Wrad (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrad is totally correct. For over 2000 years, up until the time of European colonialization of Africa, the East Coast of Africa was influenced primarily by the Arab traders who plied the waters of the Indian Ocean. Some of the Arabs stayed and intermarried with the local indigenous people, which resulted in the genetic makeup of the coastal people of East Africa today - part African, part Semitic Arab. The language spoken up and down the coast was Swahili, which means "Coast" in Arabic. Mogadishu, the capital and largest city of Somalia, was one of many of these trading towns that sprang up along the East African Coast, including the towns of Mombasa and Lamu, Kenya; and Dar es Salaam and Zanzibar, Tanzania. Here's an online article published by the National Geographic that talks more about this: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/data/2001/10/01/html/ft_20011001.6.fulltext.html . Saukkomies 02:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

However, it's still true that the great majority of Somalis are simply not Arabs in any meaningful sense of the word "Arab", so that Somalia's membership in the Arab League is something of an anomaly. Many non-Arab Muslims in many parts of the world recite daily Islamic prayers in Arabic, but that doesn't make you an Arab, any more than celebrating the Mass in Latin makes you a citizen of Rome... AnonMoos (talk) 06:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Arabic is more widespread in Somalia than people here seem to think.-- Slacker (talk) 12:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Removal of church/god from public education system
I know that in the 60's prayer was removed from the education system.Is there any other rulings declaring church/god be removed from school? wildboyz_211 (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Prayer was not removed from the education system. Anyone can pray whenever they want.  Public prayer, led by teachers or administrators, is not allowed.  And to answer your second question, there have been many rulings removing Bible passages and copies of the Ten Commandments from public schools.  00:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corvus cornix (talk • contribs)


 * If you want to talk about this meaningfully, you had better state whose educational system you area talking about. --Anon, 01:17 UTC, December 5.


 * We should not be surprised that there is an article on school prayer. The U.S. section seems quite factual, including the first challenges in 1890.  And to clarify, prayer is not forbidden in state schools; it is the appearance of state sponsored religion that violates separation of church and state.  --—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk  -  19:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes i was talking about the Unites States education system, specifically, are they allowed to hand out papers referring to 'Jesus', 'Lord', or 'God Almighty'? wildboyz_211 (talk)


 * The constitutional principle involved is the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, which forbids government institutions from establishing a preference for one religion over another. In your example, it would violate the Establishment Clause if a public school were to endorse Christian teachings about Jesus, "the Lord", or "God Almighty", to present those teachings as fact, or to ask for the blessing of those Christian figures for a school event, since that would involve an implicit endorsement.  Such an endorsement would show a preference for Christianity over other religions.  Now, the Constitution does not forbid private or religious schools from endorsing or preferring a given religion's teachings.  So it is acceptable for a private Christian school to hold school prayers to "God Almighty" or to ask for Jesus' blessing.  It is also acceptable for individual students at a public school to do this, as long as other students are not required or in any way encouraged to participate.  In general, such prayer cannot be led by a teacher during the class period in a public school, since the teacher is an employee in a position of authority, and having the teacher lead the prayer would amount to the school's endorsement of the practice.  Finally, there would be no problem with the study in a public school of papers referring to Christian figures such as "Jesus", "Lord", or "God Almighty" so long as those papers were studied critically as part of a course on comparative religions or perhaps as part of a course on history or literature.  The requirement would be that these religious writings not be presented as revealed truth but as objects for critical academic study.  Again in a private school, there would be no such requirement, and religious writings could be presented as revealed truth.  Marco polo (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, this was exactly what i was looking for, my sister is in the 2nd grade, shes doing a play, and in the play she has something to say referring to Jesus, the Lord, and God Almighty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildboyz 211 (talk • contribs) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Driberg
I remember once read the following (the words are to the best of my memory): "To write an obituary of Tom Driberg without mentioning homosexuality would be like writing an obituary of Maria Callas without mentioning opera". Google has proven fruitless in my search for its author. Can anyone help? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * If that was in an obituary (which it sounds like), then it's presumably from a 'serious' British newspaper or magazine. It's most unlikely to be from the Daily Telegraph, notoriously coy about mentioning homosexuality at all in obituaries - it often uses the code phrase "He was unmarried". The Times is less coy about such things, but it wouldn't approach the matter jokily. It also wouldn't be from a serious left wing journal, I think. A possible candidate may be The Spectator, but that's only a guess, Jack. (I've read somewhere, by the way, that Attlee's only reason for keeping Driberg out of his government was that he was well known to be homosexual, so your quotation strikes me as fair comment.) Xn4  01:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It sounds familiar to me, tho' not, I suspect, from an obituary, rather from someone writing about an obituary (a meta-obituary?). DuncanHill (talk) 01:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * A possible writer is Auberon Waugh, who knew Driberg well and was in some way related to him. Xn4  01:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Could it be Francis Wheen? DuncanHill (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess it could be Wheen, and Waugh's a strong possibility too. I do read lots of obituaries, but can't remember ever reading Driberg's (he died years before I'd ever actually heard of him).  It might have been in something like "The Book of Obituaries" - the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, the Times and other papers have published their choice selections of obits, although I've never purchased or borrowed such a book. It's possible I saw one in a bookshop and started leafing through it, as one does, and chanced upon this quote.  I browse through so many books this way without actually buying them (it's my primary source of knowledge, after all; Wikipedia would be immensely poorer without it) that I can't possibly remember all of them.  Thanks for the thoughts so far and if anybody has any further ideas, please let me know.  In the meantime I'll be goin' a-Wheenin' and a-Waughin'.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Article about the Mongol Invasion of Persia is needed
Can someone write about the Mongol Invasion of Persia exclusively? Only about the invasion of Persia. Thanks. Sonic99 (talk) 02:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Sonic99, why don't you have a go yourself? I will be happy to help and advise you in any way I can.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm...maybe I'll take a go at it later.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that Sonic already added the appropriate link on Mongol invasions, but I suppose a good starting point would be Battle of Baghdad (1258), as Baghdad was in Persia at the time. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Was Baghdad the captial city of the Persia during the Mongol Invasion? No, I think someone should write about the Mongol Invasion of Persia. Go ahead, bibliomaniac15. Sonic99 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Movie Based on Tolstoy Book
There was a movie produced perhaps some time before World War 2 titled "Resurrection." Apparently it was based on the book of the same title by Leo Tolstoy. It is referred to by Viktor Frankl in his book "Man's Search for Meaning." I would like to find out if it is available on any modern media for purchase or viewing. I have searched the video stores and my library, but I only came up with copies of the Tolstoy book. Thanks.74.233.13.105 (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered the same question here. Oda Mari (talk) 05:43, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Urban Warfare in world war one
How was Urban warfare conducted in wworld war one? ` Esskater 11  16:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, there were no urban battles in World War One. Random Nonsense (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There were towns which changed hands numerous times in a few days. The house to house fighting would probably count as "urban warfare". Rifles, pistols, grenades, hand-to-hand fighting, bayonets, blood, guts. Edison (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Add artillery bombardments on top of that. I've found a couple photos of American infantry (1 and 2) involved in house to house fighting in French towns with artillery damage quite evident.   Broken Sphere Msg me 20:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didnt know weather or not they did en mass charges still or did more squad based tactics like in world war two. Esskater 11  01:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Divorce in the UK
If i wanted to divorce my partner, but i couldn't afford spousal support, or wouldn't want to lose my house, what would my options be in the UK; please take into consideration that my spouse does not pay any bills in the household. --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 18:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * We cannot offer legal advice, but there are probably several options. And bear in mind that lots of people have gone through a similar process. I suggest you contact your local Citizens Advice Bureau so that you can talk the problems through in detail, free and in confidence.--Shantavira|feed me 18:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I will give you some legal advice. In case of divorce courts look at a number of factors to determine how alimony and marital property should be distributed between a husband and wife. Factors courts might look at include as to whether favor one spouce or the other include need. If one party would be in more financial need they will be favored in the property distribution. A party would seen as in more financial need if he had less earning power, traning or were out of the work force. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.239.144 (talk) 23:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Near death experiences and heaven
Are there any articles, or reports on near death experiences and visions of heaven? 64.236.121.129 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Near death experience is an obvious one. Do you have a search box on the left side of your screen?  It's often useful for such things. Friday (talk) 18:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Julian of Norwich was a medieval anchorite who had a near death experience which she later wrote about. She claims to have seen God and had several questions about life answered in her experience. It's pretty interesting. Wrad (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for, but this "Time" article,, discusses the phenomenon and includes discussion suggesting that common features of NDEs may be somewhat culture specific. Azi Like a Fox (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Government
I'm trying to improve the article on Government. I want to add something about the origin of government, but my searches on "Government" in Google (and in my local library's catalog) return too many unrelated searches (thousands). I don't know where to begin searching for something like this. It seems that no one knows exactly when the first government formed within humanity--that's okay with me, but I'm looking for well-researched information containing the best guess possible of when, where, how and why the first government formed. Please help me.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One problem with this is the definition of "government". Is a tribal leader, his guards, and his advisers considered a government? Can a King - all by himself - be considered a government? All in all, this reminds me of a joke I heard in anthropology: Put three people in a room together. Two will ally to oppress the third. Then, one of the two will take credit for keeping the third in order and govern the other two. Suddenly, you have upper, middle, and lower class. -- k a i n a w &trade; 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly government, in the broadest and most basic sense, long preceded recorded history, so we cannot know where or when it originated. Primatology offers evidence that social orders and relations of dominance akin to government exist in related primate species and thus, to some extent, government may predate the emergence of Homo sapiens, and it may have arisen as a way of regulating what may be innate striving for dominance and recognition of hierarchy. That said, important aspects of modern governments have known historical origins.  See our article on Bureaucracy, for example, for a history of bureaucratic practice.  Marco polo (talk) 21:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I'll look at Bureaucracy right now.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 21:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * You might try looking into philosophy. Since no one really knows where Governments came from, there are mostly just a lot of theories. Hobbes argues that governments evolved because people realized that chaos and lack of order increased the probability of their dying a horrible death. In the medieval period, it was argued that Kings were chosen by God, and that that was the way it had always been. It all depends on who you ask, since no one really knows and there are no records. Wrad (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Wrad. I just checked out of the library with a book about Thomas Hobbes [[Image:Smiley.svg|21px|(smile)]].--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article could use links to some of the earliest known governments (civilizations), such as that of Sumer, Ancient Egypt and the Indus Valley Civilization. Currently, the earliest mention is of the Code of Hammurabi, although the Code of Ur-Nammu predates it by centuries.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks--that's how I should have approached this--to try to find out when and where government becomes visible to history.--Mumia-w-18 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * From what I remember from my sociology course, the origins of government are tied to origins of nation and state. There are several major theories about the possible source of power, such as "theory of social contract (government as a sort of agreement between people that they need one)", "paternal theory (government as a natural effect of family pattern that is believer to preceed other forms of social organisation)", etc.

Googling the "theories of origins of government" will bring you much informaton about that (just checked :-))

T. Roosevelt letter to Edwin Arlington Robinson
I saw a PBS video biography on Teddy Roosevelt which ended with the following from a letter he wrote to the poet Robinson.

"There is not one among us in whom a devil does not dwell; at sometime, on some point, that devil masters each of us; he who has never failed has never been tempted; but the man who does in the end conquer, who does painfully retrace the steps of his slipping, why he shows that he has been tried in the fire and not found wanting. It is not having been in the Dark House, but having left it, that counts."

I have not found any reference to the letter itself or the context in which T.R was using it.

ken —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.83.4.153 (talk) 19:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I used Google to search for the phrase "among us in whom a devil does not dwell" and got 48 hits. According to this site, that was Theodore Roosevelt to Edwin Arlington Robinson, March 27, 1916.  Letters of Theodore Roosevelt (Harvard, Cambridge, 1951-54), 8, 1024.  152.16.59.190 (talk) 07:00, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * This is very much in the spirit of that other Roosevelt quote: "Far better it is to dare mighty things - even though checked by failure - than to take rank with those poor souls who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in that grey twilight which knows neither victory nor defeat". --  JackofOz (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

SS recruitment
What was the criterion for selection and membership of the German SS?86.151.242.37 (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see this information in Schutzstaffel. If a reference is found here, it should be added to the article. --  k a i n a w &trade; 20:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article on the German Wikipedia has this (my translation):
 * While [the SS] until then had consisted of a small group of a few hundred men within the SA, it would be developed according to Himmler['s plans] into the fight troupes of the Nazi party, "a National-Socialist soldier's order of men, proven Nordic, each of whom unconditionally obeys every command that comes from the Führer." He developed the SS at the same time into an "elite" and a mass organization.
 * The elitist nature [of the SS] showed itself in the biological-racial and ideological criteria that had to be satisfied to be able to belong to the SS. As a "tribal community", the SS was meant to present an embodiment of the Nazi master race ideology, and, as "guardians of the purity of blood", was intended to develop into the germinating cell of Nordic racial domination. The selection criteria were therefore not limited to the candidate himself; also the wives of SS members were examined as to their "racial purity".
 * --Lambiam 23:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, yes, in theory. But then you have to wonder about the this: not much in the way of German blood there. Likewise this and this. The Waffen SS was also the main "consumer" of Volksdeutsche recruits, most of whom were less German than Abraham Lincoln was English. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

When Himmler suceeded Erhard Heiden as Reichsführer SS in January 1929 he quickly established strict criteria for recruitment. Men had to be at least 1.7m tall and of the correct racial stock. All applications had to be accompanied by a photograph, to be examined by racial experts at headquarters. A grading system was established dividing candidates into five types;
 * 1. Pure Nordic.
 * 2. Predominantly Nordic.
 * 3. Light Alpine, with Dinaric (Mediterranean) additions.
 * 4. Predominantly eastern.
 * 5 Mongrels of non-European origin.

Only those placed in the first three groups were considered for membership. Further examination would follow, in which those selected would be graded on a scale of one to nine for their physical attributes. Those placed on four and above were admitted without further question, while those rated seven or below were rejected. Those placed at five and six were admitted if their enthusiasm made up for any perceived physical deficiencies.

Himmler had a preference for recruiting from the countryside, the home of the true Aryans, as he saw it, rather than the racially mixed cities. For him the SS was the new Teutonic Order, with overtures of Arthurian mysticism. In a speech of 1934 he described his elite as "a knightly order, from which one cannot withdraw, to which one is recruited by blood and within which one remains with body and soul so long as one lives on this earth." It is ironic, as Angus points out, that the Waffen SS at least was to end as one of the most ethnically diverse and polyglot formations in German history. Clio the Muse (talk) 02:44, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Indemnity payments during the Russian Civil War
Hey, Clio, thanks a million for that invaluable information on Alexsandr Eiduk! I hate to push my luck but I have one more question connected with the period of early Bolshevik rule in Russia, and if anyone can help it's almost certain to be you. I have some information that during the Civil War when the Communists occupied an area they levied indemnity payments on the local bourgeoise. Do you know anything about this and can you point me in the direction of some specific references, oh mighty Spirit of History? Fred said right (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Two for the price of one? Do I get a prize?!  The book you should consult is Front Lines in the Civil War: Political Parties and Social Movements in Russia by V. Brovkin (Princetown, 1994).  On page 98 he mentions that when the Red Army took control of Kharkov, Kiev and Odessa in 1919 an indemnity was levied on the bourgeoisie in each city, 500 million roubles in Odessa alone.  You will also find mention of this figure in Cursed Days, Ivan Bunin's Civil War diary (London, 2000, p. 89).  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Beowulf
I'm currently most of the way through Seamus Heaney's translation of Beowulf. I'm wondering: what exactly makes Beowulf a classic? What makes it a great poem? Is it just that there aren't many other examples of poetry from that era, period? (I also recently saw the recent film version of the poem, which is nice to see in Imax 3D, but again nothing really special.) zafiroblue05 | Talk 20:16, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The initial interest in the poem after its re-discovery was primarily philological. It is the longest surviving poem in Anglo-Saxon, and to students of that language it is therefore an essential text. But for a passionate defence of its value as a work of literature, you should read J. R. R. Tolkien's 1936 lecture "Beowulf: The Monsters and the Critics", where he says:
 * It glimpses the cosmic and moves with the thought of all men concerning the fate of human life and efforts; it stands amid but above the petty wars of princes, and surpasses the dates and limits of historical periods, however important. At the beginning, and during its process, and most of all at the end, we look down as if from a visionary height upon the house of man in the valley of the world. A light starts — lixte se leoma ofer landa fela — and there is a sound of music; but the outer darkness and its hostile offering lie in wait for the torches to fail and voices to cease.
 * For me, the interest in the poem is that it opens a window onto the world of the Anglo-Saxons, showing their obsession with honor, gift-giving, heirlooms, fealty, life, death, and fate (a world that was vanishing when the Beowulf poet began to write). Gdr 21:12, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Like Gdr says, its place was somewhat guaranteed, regardless of quality, because it is the longest surviving piece of poetry written in Anglo-Saxon. Anything of that magnitude would be regarded this way. It does have some other features, based on its representation of the Anglo-Saxon style of the epic genre, and its (idealised) representation of Anglo-Saxon culture. It's also interesting that it shows an overlay of Christian mythology on top of an otherwise pagan story.
 * The movie is a modern reinterpretation of the story, which, you will probably have realised by now, is quite different to that of the text. Take the movie with more than a pinch of salt; perhaps a handful, regardless of its quality or lack thereof. Steewi (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that it deviates from the text a lot, but I'd have to admit that I expected it to be a lot worse. It was closer than I thought it would be and carried themes introduced by modern analysts of the poem, such as the question of who the real monster is, Beowulf or Grendel. Wrad (talk) 00:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In historical terms Beowulf is indeed a text of unparalleled importance, quite apart from its literary merits. But even so I still believe there are passages of depth and beauty, including my personal favourite;


 * Our eternal Lord grants some men wisdom, some wealth, makes others great. The world is God's, He allows a man to grow famous, and his family rich, gives him land and towns to rule and delight in ... and who in human unwisdom, in the middle of such power, remembers that it will all end, and too soon? Clio the Muse (talk) 02:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah yes, some of the best early-medieval English poetry has to do with fate. Wrad (talk) 03:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Any early work is "classic" by definition. Later works, no matter how brilliant or innovative, are presumed to have benefited from the earlier work. Consider the argument the "Shakespeare is all chliches." Wel sure, but somebody had to write them first. Beowulf was the first work to which we have access that presents these motifs. -Arch dude (talk) 03:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

One child policy and Islam
I was wondering if Islam is in anyway inherently opposed to the idea of a one child policy imposed by the state? --Seans Potato Business 21:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure they are, but I don't know the specifics. From what I've learned they want to spread Islam any way they can, including having kids. I don't know how unique that is, though. Most any culture or religion would be opposed to such a policy, with only a few exceptions. Wrad (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

They don't even have a one wife policy! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan mouse (talk • contribs) 23:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * There are probably more creeds to Islam then to Christianity, and while afaik they generally dont have one wife policy, a question if they actively encourage people to have more then one child takes a specialist to answer.
 * The dangerous mess-up may occur because of Islam being widely popular in poor countries (coupled with hight children mortality), where not the religion but the practical idea of more children surviving and succeeding in life enough to care for old parents encourages having many children.

Tanks
In what way did the advent of the tank in World War One affect thinking about the future nature of war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.80.248 (talk) 21:33, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Fairly extensively. Take a look at the articles on J.F.C. Fuller and Basil Liddell-Hart, two early theorists of armoured warfare, for a start. The Battle of Cambrai (1917) is a good early example of what tanks got people thinking about. - EronTalk 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The tank, at least the concept of the tank, affected thinking about warfare well before its advent at the Somme and Cambrai. As early as 1903 H G Wells published his essay, The Land Ironclads, in the Strand Magazine. Their function, as imagined by Wells, was in the transportation firepower, with little of the mobility and independent tactical function later conceived by Fuller and others.

Essentially the armoured fighting vehicle was a solution to the problem to modern warfare, where mass citizen armies faced one another, balanced by numbers and armaments, allowing conflict to degenerate into a simple state of siege, where one side struggled to gain advantage over the other. The actual course of the First World War was brilliantly prediced by Ivan Bloch, a Polish banker, at the turn of the nineteenth century in Is War Now Impossible? In this he argued that conflict between industrial powers, one balanced against the other, would inevitably degenerate into attrition and trench warfare, with famine and revolution following on in style of the apocalypse. It was Fuller in publications like Plan 1919  who argued that the tank would restore mobility to warfare. By this there would be no longer any need for the massive firepower-accompanied by horrendous casualties-on which the generals had attempted to achieve breakthroughs in the course of the First World War. Instead, mobile formations would be able to strike at the rear, the most vulnerable point of any army, where command centres and the like were situated.

I suppose if Bloch's vision had remained in place-if warfare between between modern nations had an inevitable outcome in famine and revolution-governments would have been unlikely to pursue it as 'politics by other means.' The tank gave warfare a new acceptability. Clio the Muse (talk) 01:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It affected war heavily after WW1, but ironically, today it's seen by some as becoming increasingly obsolete, mostly because their armor can be defeated by a single missile like Hellfire missiles. I don't think it's the end of tanks though. There is still research into better armor, and active protection systems. Missiles can be defeated by laser defense systems. Work is still early, but any tank fielding such a system has a decisive advantage. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to further embellish on the already wonderful responses to this question. Between the wars (during the 1920s and 1930s), the major powers of the world had markedly differing reactions to the concept of placing a lot of their nations' resources into building up a powerful tank corps. Several military leaders around the world pushed for the development of a strong armoured force, however the results varied dramatically from one country to the next. Here are some of the results of this:


 * Germany was the most successful (at first) at envisioning the potential of the tank. It is said that the losers of a war are usually the ones that learn the most from it. Such was the case with Germany after losing WWI. The British had used tanks against the Germans in a couple of the battles toward the end of WWI, and the Germans felt that they had been caught off guard by this and wanted to catch up. After WWI, the German government set up 57 military committees that were to study everything about the strategies and tactics that happened in WWI, and made some recommendations for what to do in the future. One of the most important of these recommendations was to build up a highly trained tank corps that could implement a newly created form of war that became known as the Blitzkrieg. As a result of this, when WWII began Germany was very well prepared to test their newly developed tank units in the field, to astounding results.


 * France decided to place most of its military resources on building up a huge wall between itself and Germany, and neglected other areas, including building up a tank corps. The result was that they were completely unprepared for the German Blitzkrieg and its heavy use of tanks and other mechanized military unites, which basically went around France's Maginot Line defensive wall and descended on Paris. It took the Germans just two months from start to finish to defeat France, due largely to their use of tanks.


 * Although Britain had basically invented the tank, they did not realize the best way to use it until after WWII started. I should say that the British military in general did not, since there were individuals in the British Army that did understand the best way to use tanks, which is to amass them and use them as the primary offensive units to punch through enemy lines. What the British (and French) kept coming back to the idea of using the tanks to support the infantry - thus dispersing the tanks instead of amassing them - and making it so that the infantry, not tanks, took the role as primary offensive units. However, once things got really underway in WWII, the British played "catch-up", and by the time of the battles in Northern Africa, British General Montgomery was able to score some solid victories against the famous tank German commander Irwin Rommel.


 * After WWI the US basically took the posture of an ostriche with its head in the sand. So little was spent on developing the American military between WWI and WWII, that even IF the US had focused its resources on developing offensive tank divisions, they would have still been very weak and small. They US placed its emphasis on using its tanks to be part of larger fighting groups that included aircraft, infantry, and supply trucks. The US wanted to avoid tank-on-tank battles, so they developed weaker tanks than the Germans had. In practice this system did not work very well. The fact that it worked at all was due to the one thing that the US had going for it: good leadership, especially that of Generals Patton and Bradley, who were able to adjust battlefield tactics during the course of the war to make the most out of the not-so-good situation.


 * And then there are the Russians. Russia learned how powerful and effective armoured vehicles were during its Civil War that took place immediately after WWI, and began a program to develop the best and biggest tank army in the world. At the outset of WWII, Russia had more tanks than all the rest of the world combined, and moreover, they were probably the best tanks, too. They incorporated innovative designs, and were designed to operate over muddy ground, which there was a lot of in Russia. As a result of this, the Russian tank divisions were able to outperform the Germans - something that none of the other of Germany's enemies really had been able to consistently accomplish. The biggest problem, however, that the Russians faced was an almost complete lack of leadership, due to Stalin's purge of the Red Army just prior to WWII. So, although they outgunned the Germans, they didn't have the leadership to really take advantage of their superior tank divisions until later on in the war as leaders emerged from combat experience and were promoted.

Hope that helps. This is all much better discussed in the wiki articles on Armored warfare and History of the tank. Saukkomies 16:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Another thing the US had going for it in World War II: numbers. For every tank, tank destroyer, or armored assault gun the Germans were able to build, the US was able to field six Sherman tanks. --Carnildo (talk) 21:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is true, but only after the US had geared itself up to warfare production after Pearl Harbor. The original question was what had been done in the years between WWI and WWII with tank development, and in that regard the US was probably the least prepared of any of the major powers, including the Japanese. Saukkomies 00:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Leprosy in Europe
Two questions. Is it true that leprosy came to Europe at the time of the crusades? How were lepers treated and perceived in medieval Europe? Pope Hilarious (talk) 21:56, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * (1) No, leprosy was well established in Europe long before the Crusades. There were leper colonies in France as early as the 7th century, in Switzerland in the 8th century, and in England (at Canterbury) in the late 11th century. However, leprosy was more common in the near East, so it's no mystery that the number of sufferers in Europe was going up sharply around the time of the Crusades.
 * (2)You may find the article here at the Catholic Encyclopedia helpful.
 * Xn4 00:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, Your Holiness, here is a passage from a decree issued by King Rothar of Lombardy in 643AD, "If a man become a leper...and is expelled from his city or dwelling, let him not donate his possessions to anyone. For on the very day he is expelled, he is considered dead." So, as you can see, and as Xn4 has confirmed, leprosy was present in Europe well before the Crusades. As for your second question, Rothar's decree also supplies part of the answer: lepers were ostracised, in the manner prescribed in the Book of Leviticus. They were forced to live outwith the limits of the town; to wear a long robe of a distinctive colour marked by the letter 'L'; and they had to signal their approach by ringing a bell and shouting, 'Unclean, unclean.' In the sixth century the church placed them under the care of local bishops. The whole process of church supervision was later formalised by the Third Lateran Council. Those who were suspected of having contracted the disease were to be examined by their local priest or magistrate. If they were found to be infected they were ritually seperated from the rest of the community by an act of symbolic burial, the separatio leprosorum. By this the leper stood before the open grave, his or her head covered by a black cloth. He or she was then declared 'Dead to the world, reborn to God.' Once this was complete, the wretched individual in question was led in procession to his or her place of exile.

Sometimes action taken by state authorities could be far more ferocious, as lepers were natural scapegoats, much like the Jewish community at the time. In 1318 Philip V of France charged lepers with being in league with the Saracens and of poisoning wells. They were ordered to be burned alive, along with the Jews, who allegedly gave them counsel and comfort. Interestingly enough the disease was believed to be a punishment for sexual depravity, the AIDS of the Middle Ages. The rate of reported infection seems to have declined in the sixteenth century, though by that time syphilis had taken its place as the most fearsome disease connected with sex. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In the crusader states themselves, though, leprosy, being more common, was treated far differently. There was an Order of St. Lazarus set up to house lepers, and there was even a beloved leper king, Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. I seem to recall hearing about a whole order of leper knights but I am probably misremembering facts about the Order of Lazarus. One detrimental aspect of being a leper in the crusader states springs to mind - if you sold someone a leprous slave, you would have to buy him (or her) back. I've never read anything (at least from crusaders) that connected it to sex though, that's interesting. I don't know if the incidence of leprosy in Europe increased after the crusades, and I don't think that it would have, since it's not the most infectious of diseases, is it? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * One thing you have to be careful about though, is that many skin diseases and afflictions were grouped under the term 'leprosy'. Random Nonsense (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Precisely, Random! Some of the remains of people from Medieval Europe who were buried in leper colonies (and who were presumed to have had leprosy) indicate that instead of leprosy many people had psoriasis. Ironically, one of the modern treatments for psoriasis is exposure to ultraviolet rays, such as one would get from exposing bare skin to the sun's rays. However, the standard practice in Europe for anyone who was considered to have leprosy was to force them to cover their entire bodies with huge robes, thus preventing anyone from seeing their misshapen visages. The result was that instead of being able to have healthy exposure to the sun's rays, these poor misdiagnosed people would end up creating conditions that would worsen the disease. Saukkomies 21:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

military as an alternative to prison
In the past, you could sign up as an alternative to prison, but when did this practice end? And did it have a specific name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trojan mouse (talk • contribs) 23:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In what national location was this true? It may currently be true in a number of nations or states. In which one do you have an interest? Bielle (talk) 01:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are looking for info on the United Kingdom, I believe the practice ended with the end of National service, as parliament decided that it was an insult and a detriment to an entirely volunteer army to equate it with prison. --Chrisfow (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * In many jurisdictions in the US, a particular judge may decide that a young man who has committed a minor crime would do better in the military than in prison, and will "suggest" that they go and enlist rather than send them to prison. It isn't a sentence, but it has the effect of one.   Corvus cornix  talk  18:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it is direcly relevant, but some "mercenary military" most famously possible French Foreign Legion, provide a degree of relief against criminal charges. However it is not accurately a sentence but rather a place to run.

Tkachyov and Lenin
Would it be true to say that Pytor Tkachyov, the Russian populist, was a more important influence on Lenin than Karl Marx? Zinoviev4 (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but his forname is actually Pyotr. Wikipedia doesn't have an article on him at present, though there's a draft in Vecrumba's userspace, with a couple of external links. Algebraist 23:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In theoretical terms, probably not; in terms of political organisation, almost certainly. P. N. Tkachyov or Tkachev was the most 'Jacobin' among the Populists, just as Lenin was to be the most 'Jacobin' among the Marxists. He was also an economic materialist, the intellectual link between Chernyshevsky, another of Lenin's favourite writers, and the Bolshevik movement. Just as Lenin was to do later in his ferocious debates with the Mensheviks and others, Tkachyov rejected the mass party, calling instead for a the training of a revolutionary elite. He was to write in the 1870s "The question 'What is to be done?' should no longer concern us. It has long been resolved.  Make the Revolution!" Although Lenin denounced his conspiratorial politics in public he read all of his published works, and, from 1903 onwards, was to create a party very much along the lines advocated by the Populist, one of revolutionary Jacobinism in action. You will find more on this, Zinoviev, in Petr Tkachev: The Critic as Jacobin by Deborah Hardy (Seattle, 1977). Clio the Muse (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2007 (UTC)