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

= October 5 =

purpose of Vietnam War
Was the purpose of the Vietnam War to keep China from reaping the bounty of an inexhaustible food supply and if so is this what is now going on in Burma (having found the food supply available from Southeast Asia to be exhaustible) and is the Domino effect now thus proven to be a real and present danger? 71.100.9.205 00:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...and is this a leading question or what? This page is not for soapbox debates.--Wetman 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you my friend need to stop trying to start one. 71.100.9.205 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The simple answers to these three questions are 1) no; 2) something quite unrelated; and 3) no. The Vietnam War was waged ostensibly to contain communism.  A case could be made that it was really waged to defend American hegemony in Asia and the southwest Pacific.  A case cannot be made that the war was to keep China from an inexhaustible food supply.  Vietnam's arable land is and was just as densely populated as the more densely populated farmlands of China, and Vietnam did not and does not have a large food surplus. Thailand does have somewhat of a surplus, and Cambodia probably has the potential for one, but this is not an inexhaustible supply.  I have never seen such an argument made by any serious scholar. As for Burma, I see no connection with China's supposed quest for an inexhaustible food supply.  The Burmese junta has cultivated ties with China, but China's interest is quite clearly in Burma's oil, not its food supply.  Finally, have you read the article Domino effect? This was the theory that if one country (such as Vietnam) was allowed to "fall" to communism, then the spread of communism in Southeast Asia could not be stopped.  In fact, South Vietnam did "fall" to a communist government, and Cambodia for a time was under communist rule, but Cambodia is no longer under a communist government, Thailand never has been, and neither, for that matter, has Burma.  So the theory of a "domino effect" has been disproven.  Marco polo 01:12, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * About two years ago the article states something quite different and I fought a rather fruitless battle to improve it. Luckily, it is a little more balanced now. DirkvdM 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Two reasons for question part number one: 1.) in high school we were taught the reason all the buffalo were killed off in the West was to deprive the native population of a food supply, 2.) in the military as soldiers and at home the argument was originally that America was fighting for religious freedom and all the Ideals that had been fought for in Korea War, except now in Vietnam. The argument against the war was that it was not being fought to defend oil reserves or for any practical reason. The counter argument was that food was the practical reason; that if China had an unlimited supply of rice it could take over the world. The Domino Effect on the other hand I agree was proven wrong in the short haul and maybe in the long haul and maybe even in China due to the dependency of America on Chinese goods and whatever China depends on America for. But that still leaves Burma. Communism versus Freedom of Religion again, only this time its oil that’s the practical reason? 71.100.9.205 03:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * 1)That's crap. You make it sound like it was a concerted effort.  The killing of the buffalo was no more a concerted effort to kill the entire species any more than the killoff of the mammoth by prehistoric Americans was a concerted effort to keep other tribes from being able to eat mammoths.  Buffalo hides were in style, they were there on the hoof, there were hunters eager to kill them to make money.  q.e.d.  2)That's crap.  Nobody ever argued that the Vietnam War was about religious freedom, except possibly, minutely, as a side effect of keeping "Godless Communism" out of South Vietnam (which was the stated goal - the "Communism" part, not the "Godless" part).  Corvus cornix 20:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Whose purpose are you talking about? The original purpose of the Vietnamese was to kick the French out, which went fairly smoothly. But then the US took their place and their intention was to fight a conceived threat of the spread of the communist ideology. At least, that was the official reason. So the domino effect theory was the reason and fighting that the purpose. DirkvdM 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Make-up of Paris, France
Hi there,

I am looking for some information on the cultural groups that live in Paris, France. I also would like to know why they came to Paris.

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.73.17 (talk) 03:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Demographics of Paris would be a good place to start. If that isn't what you're looking for, you might some tangentially related information at History of Paris. Note that the demographics article states, "French censuses are forbidden to ask questions regarding ethnicity or religion, therefore it is not possible to know the ethnic composition of the metropolitan area of Paris." --YbborTalk 04:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Spanish fleet at Trafalgar
it is often overlooked that it was the Spanish as well as the French navy that was defeated at the battle of Trafalgar. Is there any information on the nature and quality of Spanish naval forces at this time? Bel Carres 05:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed. This tends to be overlooked, but the Spanish in the course of the eighteenth century had developed a strong and modern naval arm, so much so that in 1790 the British Admiralty advised both king and parliament not to go to war in the dispute over the fur trading station at Nootka on the west coast of Vancouver Island because of the concentrion in European waters of 'The Spanish Armament', a force of Armada-like proportions.  Later when Nelson captured the 112-gun San José at the Battle of Cape St. Vincent he described it as 'the best ship in the world.'  It was, I suppose, the great misfortune of the Spanish to have entered into a bad alliance at a time when the Royal Navy was headed by the boldest, least conventional and most imaginitive sailor in its history.  Clio the Muse 03:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

England and Islam
I was told that a king of England once threatened to adopt Islam as the national religion. Does anyone know who this was and what the circumstances were? 81.156.0.8 09:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Never happened as far as I am aware - must be an urban myth. --Fredrick day 09:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It is reminiscent of the slogan "Rather Turkish than Popish" of Les Gueux. --Lambiam 10:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The king in question was King John. I think the threat was at best semi-serious, intending to put pressure on the Pope. Rhinoracer 10:17, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for the claim that John of England made such a threat? --Lambiam 12:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How is that a threat? The real bad thing is to have a national religion and that was already in place, so does it matter much which one? DirkvdM 18:07, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * King John was before the Church of England, back when England's religion was the Pope's religion. --M @ r ē ino 22:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There certainly were severe problems between King John and Pope Innocent III, who were king of England and pope during almost exactly the same period (respectively, 1199 and 1198 to 1216). They were both powerful and aggressive men, and after a huge falling-out they engaged in a war of sanction and counter-sanction: in 1209, Innocent excommunicated John. By 1213, struggling on all fronts and especially with his barons, as well as being under pressure from Rome, John submitted himself to Innocent as his vassal, thus gaining support from Rome. According to an old copy of the Wikipedia page on King John here, Matthew Paris reported that John was so desperate for support that in 1213 he sent a mission to North Africa offering to help the Muslims in their Spanish wars with Aragon and to convert to Islam in return for help against his own enemies. If he did do that, how serious was he? It sounds an astonishing notion, and if it had come to Innocent's attention it could only have strengthened his hand. As the material is not on the Wikipedia article now, was it reverted because the reference is incorrect or because Matthew is unreliable? Xn4  22:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The reference, Xn4, is in part correct, and it can be traced to the chronicle of Matthew Paris. However, according to Paris, John wrote in 1205 to Mohammed An-Nasir, who was based in Egypt, promising that he would convert England to Islam if the Saracen ruler would make war on the Pope.  Other sources make the same claim, though different rulers are named and the letter is dated a few years later.  There are two issues here.  First, John was not a popular figure with the church and all written records at this time were complied by clerics, who were certainly capable of exaggeration, if not outright lies.  Second, there is no evidence at all of the alleged letter mentioned by Paris and others, and certainly no Muslim response to John's 'initiative.'  What seems far more likely-assuming that the whole thing is not a lie-is that John, in a fit of temper, may have threatened such a course of action (he certainly threatened to slit Stephen Langton's nose), a threat that was then given an illusiory substance by the monkish chroniclers.  Even so, true or not, it's a small but interesting point, which reveals much about John-and just as much about the church!  Clio the Muse 23:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe it was a direct jab at Innocent, who spent much of his reign trying to forbid any contact with Egypt, aside from landing large crusading armies there. I wonder how reluctant Innocent would have been to call a crusade against England had John openly allied himself with Egypt! However, I doubt John could have ever considered converting to Islam, and anyway, claiming one's enemies were converts (secret or otherwise) to Islam was a common theme among the English chroniclers of the Third Crusade, who levelled that charge against the native-born nobles of Jerusalem. Matthew Paris was certainly familiar with those chronicles, so perhaps he picked it up from them. Adam Bishop 02:39, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Novel as a present
This Sunday will be the birthday of a girl I know and, because she likes reading, I've thought of giving her a novel as a present. Since I consider my taste to be somewhat uncommon, and I'm not very keen on reading novels, I have no idea of what she could like. Which novel(s) would you recommend? --Taraborn 09:41, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * How old will she be? -- !! ?? 09:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And could you give some indication of her taste, like the title of a novel or the name of an author she enjoyed reading? Should the book be in the English language? --Lambiam 10:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * She will be 21 and apparently she likes "mainstream"/thriller books, such as those by Dan Brown. The book should be in Spanish, but I don't think that's a problem since nowadays one can find translations very easily. --Taraborn 11:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Shadow of the Wind? Lanfear&#39;s Bane 12:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I second Lanfear's Bane's suggestion. Deor 15:26, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The Time Traveler's Wife? 38.112.225.84 15:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Both of those are good: two more to consider are "The History of Love" and "The Book Thief".SaundersW 17:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * La Sombra del Viento by Carlos Ruis Zarafon Donald Hosek 18:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much to all. Tomorrow I'm going to the bookstore. --Taraborn 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sex as a "food"
When did people start referring to sex in the same terms as food? Like, "yummy" sex or "hungry for sex"?--Mostargue 10:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Since prostitution is said to be the world's oldest profession... my guess would be since then.  Clem   13:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Don't know about sex specifically, but the OED has 'hungry' being used with non-food meanings at least as far back as 1200. Going by the OED again, sexual use of 'yummy' precedes food-related use. Algebraist 14:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm, so saying food is yummy is really calling it sexy? The things I learn here. DirkvdM 18:10, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You should have watched CSI last night, there was a restaurant with blind waiters and the patrons served in the dark. The intent was to let the patrons feel the sensuality of the tastes and textures of the foods, rather than having to rely on their appearance.  The eating was a very sexual experience, according to the show.  Corvus cornix 20:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, if it's too dark to read the prices on the menu, you're certainly bound to get screwed. dr.ef.tymac 20:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't clear, but I imagine the menu was prix fixe, since the owner said she only had two seatings a night. Corvus cornix 21:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Did they eat with their hands? DirkvdM 08:36, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Some. Couples were feeding each other figs dipped in honey, and others of the food (unidentifiable) was served on skewers.  Corvus cornix 01:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there...
an article on how the Soviet Union attempted to appeal to the African American community? Spreading the myth that AIDS was invented by the United States to eliminate African Americans, or And you are lynching Negroes? Would it be a sub-article to Soviet propaganda?--Mostargue 12:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, after reading Richard Wright's novel Black Boy, it seems as though many members of the Communist Party of the United States were African American. How does that fit in?--Mostargue 12:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the article you want is The Communist Party and African-Americans. In general Soviet propaganda in the US was by means of the CPUSA, though it should be noted that many of those who were members of CPUSA were unaware that it took its line directly from Moscow. As for why so many African-Americans were drawn to the CP, it is pretty clear that it was one of the only venues speaking out loudly in defense of African-American rights at the time and the only group seriously advocating income redistribution (the free market has little allure to those who are systematically discriminated against participating in it). --24.147.86.187 15:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * There might be an analogy to US blacks converting to islam, just to have a religion that is different from the white oppressors. So if they are strict followers of extreme capitalism, then it makes sense for them to go for the other extreme. One extreme often leads to the opposite extreme. DirkvdM 18:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ruling Ideology
To what extent did Henry VII introduce a unique Tudor ruling ideology after 1485? 217.44.78.128 12:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Our article on Henry VII of England may provide you with the answer to your homework. Aec·is·away talk 15:00, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry had one task in front of him in 1485: to repair the damage that had been done to the English goverment over the preceeding decades; to end 'states within states' and the liberty accorded to over-mighty subjects by weak central authority. A shrewd and careful man, he came with an entirely new idea of government, one that was to lay the foundations of Tudor absolutism. He ended the crown's reliance on parliament for money, and created a whole new class of administrators, made up of lawyers and the like, who by-passed the great noble houses as the new power in the land.

The ideology, if there was an ideology, was one of transcendent loyalty; an end to the false and dangerous bonds created by what has been called bastard feudalism, with all duty and commitment refocused towards the crown. This meant an end to private armies and the investment in the state of the monopoly of force. In every sense Henry ruled in a different fashion from previous monarchs, rising above the party quarrels that dominated English history every since Richard II had been deposed in 1399. Hard-working, reluctant to delegate and jealous of his authority, he created his own channels of responsibility, like the privy chamber, which could operate a little like a cabinet office. He selected his most intimate servants not by rank but for their loyalty, their flexibility and, above all, their ability. It is possible to see in this the outlines of an entirely modern system of administration. Clio the Muse 00:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Deputy Leader of the Labour Party
Harriet Harman is the current UK deputy leader, yet she holds a very junior role in government; when John Prescott was the deputy leader, he was also deputy PM and had a senior role. However, his "senior role" is now held by, basically, Alistair Darling. Is this because Gordon Brown disagrees with Harman's election as deputy?--Porcupine (prickle me!) 12:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Unlike, say, the US Vice President, the British Deputy Prime Minister is entirely ad-hoc and is appointed in exactly the same manner as any other cabinet minister. There is nothing whatsoever so say that there even needs to to exist at all (indeed, the Tory party don't have any deputy leader).  Maybe Gordon sees a deputy PM as simply unnecessary, as let's face it, he has practically complete support within the party, whereas John may have been necessary to secure support of the left. The position she does hold (AFAIK) is that if Gordon were to die in office, she would become interim Prime Minister whilst the party hold a leadership contest.146.227.11.233 12:48, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Unless the circumstances were extraordinary, I think it's more likely she'd become acting PM pending the outcome of the leadership contest. -- JackofOz 14:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I think what he meant is, that Brown's "right-hand minister" is Darling, who holds no party or governmental position of power. Why not Harman?--84.51.149.80 14:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not clear to me that Harriet Harman would automatically become 'interim Prime Minister' or 'acting prime minister' if Brown were to die. I don't think the UK has ever had an interim or acting prime minister, except in the sense that Prescott sometimes briefly deputized for Blair while Blair was away on holiday. The appointment of a prime minister is a matter for the royal prerogative. In practice, the Queen now appoints as PM whoever is elected as leader of the party which has a majority in the House of Commons, supposing there is one, which there usually is. Hand-overs are managed carefully by the party in power. The death of a serving prime minister would create a vacancy which could only be filled by the sovereign. While it's reasonable to expect an elected party leader with a majority to be appointed, I don't know that the Queen would have to choose the deputy leader of the majority party who had not been elected as leader... especially if the deputy leader faced an election for the party leadership, an election which of course could be influenced by his/her being appointed as 'interim prime minister'. So what would happen? I don't know. Xn4  21:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * You may be right. There are no recent precedents.  The last UK PM to die in office was Lord Palmerston, in 1865.  --  JackofOz 04:09, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry VII and Wales
I have one more question, please. Why did Henry Tudor land in Wales and did the Welsh gain anything from their support of his cause? 217.44.78.128 12:30, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * For the first part of your question, the Tudors were descended from the Welsh Owen Tudor, so he was looking for family support there. Adam Bishop 16:51, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I suppose he also hoped to energise the Welsh by drawing on the ancient legends, reported in the chronicle of Geoffrey of Monmouth, that a liberator would come from the west. They were certainly in need of liberation; for the Penal Laws set in place by Henry IV, in the wake of the rebellion of Owen Glendower, had effectively deprived them of all civil rights.  Beyond that, large parts of Wales had retained sympathy for the Lancastrain dynasty.  In strategic terms the country was far enough away from Richard's centre of power to allow Henry time to make his own dispositions, yet close enough to the English heartlands to allow for a rapid strike.


 * So, what did the Welsh gain from their contribution to the victory at Bosworth Field? Dragons and Bards, in the main, a condescending royal nod towards the symbols of Welsh identity and very little else.  Some were exempted-at a price-from the provisions of the Penal Laws, though these remained in place.  After all, Henry had to prove himself as king of England, and Wales was subject to the English crown.  It seems he was not, after all, the y mab darogon-the man of destiny-so eagerly anticipated by the poets.  Clio the Muse 01:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a nit-pick, Clio's last sentence should read "....he was not, after all, y mab darogan..." y means the, after all! -- Arwel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops! Or should that be oops oops?  Clio the Muse 23:46, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Burma
We experienced the fight against Communism for Freedom of Religion in Korea and then in Vietnam. Are we once again faced with the need in Burma to defend the right to believe something other than what the State wants us to believe?  Clem  13:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * How were the conflicts in Vietnam and the Koreas conflicts over the freedom of religion? And how is what is happening in Myanmar/Burma now a conflict over the freedom of religion? Aec·is·away talk 14:58, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Natural and human resources are allocated and managed differently under various religions and non-religions. Management under atheism, Islam, Judaism and Christianity may be sufficiently different when pressed that a conflict will result. Resolution of the conflict may then proceed either by compromise or by one group trying to eradicate the other. It is the later which characterizes the conflict in Korea, Vietnam, Burma and Iraq as being over suppression or oppression of religious freedom as the ultimate means of resolving a conflict.
 * In Korea you have evidence of this on one side from the public testimony of Rev. Moon. In Vietnam you had evidence of this from Hanoi Hanna speaking on behalf of North Vietnam. In Burma you have evidence of this by the oppression and suppression of Buddhist Monks by the military state. In Iraq you have evidence of this from IEDs set off in crowds of the opposing Islamic faction. One side wants to win and their plan is to accomplish this not by compromise and acknowledgment of the opposing faction's right to exist but by denying the opposing faction a right to exist. If the method of winning a conflict by this means does not characterize the conflict as being about religious freedom then I do not know what does.  Clem   16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's very simplistic to use one blanket term (freedom of religion) for so many different conflicts. It doesn't take domestic factors into account (such as ethnicity and historical feuds), and it doesn't take political factors into account, to name but two things. Or would you call communism and capitalism (Vietnam and Korea) religions? And how certain are you that the Buddhist monks are oppressed for being Buddhist monks, and not simply for challenging the authority of the junta? I think the key factor in the way they are being treated is not the fact that they are Buddhists, but the fact that, like Aung San Suu Kyi, they have stood up against the regime. A  ecis Brievenbus 18:08, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I may be using Freedom of Religion here as a Keystone (figurative use). Were Communism God centered or Capitalism not intrinsically theft then they might wash as voussoir polarities in a conflict characterized ultimately by denial of religious freedom.  Clem   18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * For the sake of clarity in this discussion, perhaps it might be better if you changed the word "religion" for "ideology" then, since I get the impression that you are using the term religion as a metaphor to describe the perception and implementation of an ideology. A  ecis Brievenbus 18:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Religion is so much more than that it would not be an adequate or accurate replacement although admittedly I am using religion here to include atheism which is non-religion. But religion is what I mean so I'm going to stick with it. Thanks.   Clem   18:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But semantics aside, just to be clear, with religion you don't just refer to Islam, Christianity etc., but also to a certain zeal within e.g. capitalism and communism? A  ecis Brievenbus 18:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * To clarify I would say that State ownership under Communism depends upon atheism for justification, while private ownership under Capitalism depends upon theism for justification. Thus conflict resolution between the two depends upon compromise (agreeing to disagree) or elimination of religious freedom by either requiring exclusive belief in the State or by requiring exclusive belief in God. The key to successful compromise being balance of power. In the West this is achieved by government, fundamentally a socialist entity regulating business, which is a private entity, while making government dependent upon business and the people for income. Beyond this maintaining a balance becomes very complicated.  Clem   11:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And who exactly are "we", anyway? 80.254.147.52 16:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If you did not fight in Korea on the side of the South then you can probably exclude yourself from the term "We'"  Clem   16:40, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Uhhh, no? A military junta has opposed the will of the people but has succeeded in isolating itself from all international intervention.  The international community is doing what it can, and "fighting" won't do any good.  Arguably, juntas can be removed by military means, since military means are their only method of ruling, but if that junta is in place because the people are at each others' throats, the only advantage to intervention would be blood letting instead of repression.  Utgard Loki 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * On that note then what would you determine the case in Burma to be? Opposing factions at each other's throat, kept under control by dictatorial military rule or just a military state in conflict with most, if not all, of the people?  Clem   16:47, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Merchant of Venice
My friend told me that Jessica never actually did give up Leah's ring for a monkey; she said that was just a lie to enrage Shylock. She said that in the end, it is revealed that Jessica had the ring the whole time. But I can't find that passage which says that she still has the ring. Is my friend mistaken, or did I overlook something? Kaiilaiqualyn 14:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll take a look for you. If it's there, it must be after the first scene of Act 3, which has those lovely lines - "Thou torturest me, Tubal, it was my turquoise, I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys."  Xn4  20:16, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything to contradict the story of Leah's ring being sold for a monkey, and Tubal says to Shylock he saw the turquoise himself in the hands of a creditor of Antonio's. Perhaps your friend is confusing Leah's ring with one of the other rings in the play, or else is confusing The Merchant of Venice with one of the later books or stories in which the same ring appears? Xn4  21:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hannibal
Why did Hannibal fail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.117 (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Because elephants can't climb mountains? Our article suggests it was because the Romans fought a war of attrition against him while he had no way to reinforce his army. Rmhermen 15:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He failed because, despite three comprehensive victories over Roman field armies, he could not make the Romans sue for peace. The Romans eventually learned their lesson, and fought a war of attrition, refusing to fight another decisive battle and denying him supplies.  Far from home, his army was difficult to supply or reinforce, and he did not receive the support he expected from Italian city states, nor from Philip V of Macedon.  His brother, Hasdrubal was defeated at the Battle of the Metaurus attempting to bring fresh troops from Spain.  The Romans also attacked the Carthaginians at home, in Africa, and Hannibal eventually lost political support at home, and was recalled.  Somewhat counter-productively for Carthage, as it turned out, his return encouraged the Carthaginians to continue the war when they could have agreed a peace treaty with Rome.  And then he lost at Zama and there was no recovery. -- !! ?? 17:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Most basically, he lacked (or at least thought he lacked?) the capacity to attack and take Rome itself. In pursuing a more long-term strategy, he encountered the difficulties detailed above. Algebraist 18:05, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I must say that I have never entirely understood Hannibal. I would have said, like so many soldiers, that he was a brilliant tactician but a poor politician, except his talents as a politician, though not as high as his talents as a soldier, were still of a comendable order. How otherwise is one to explain his appeal to Rome's Italian allies, his announcment that his quarrel was not with them, but with the power to which they had all been subject. I also do not think it quite true, as Maharbal is alleged to have said after the Battle of Cannae, that Hannibal knew how to gain a victory but not how to use it. The real issue is that Hannibal the soldier and Hannibal the politician were at variance with one another; he had the power and the means to destroy Rome by a rapid follow-up to Cannae, but his war was still one of limited aims: Rome was to be humbled and weakened, not eliminated. The city, in other words, was to be left with a role but without a confederacy. It might have worked if he had been able to detach the Greek cities of the south from their Roman alliance; but for them his 'barbarian' army was perceived as the greater threat. The moment passed, and by 214BC the Roman fleet was able to prevent supplies and reinforcements reaching Italy. In effect, Hannibal the politican had robbed Hannibal the soldier of the full rewards of victory. Clio the Muse 02:02, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * He failed because Carthage wasn't willing to support him in the earnest. The Carthaginian power elite never understood that the Romans were fighting an all-or-nothing kind of war. After Cannae Hannibal asked for more reinforcements and they where shipped to Hispannia instead. The guy fought in Italy for a lot of years with a single army and never recieved the reinforcements he needed. Flamarande 12:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

nazi voters
who voted for Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.105.117 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Won't that be a pretty long list? Most voting is also anonymous. Perhaps you are talking about a specific event? Can you provide more detail? Lanfear&#39;s Bane 15:57, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Our article on the Nazi Party suggests that the party's strongest support came from rural Protestants, small business owners and their families, workers in Thuringia, residents of the region around Nuremberg, and university students. It was weak in Catholic regions other than Nuremberg and in socialist strongholds such as Berlin and the Ruhr District.  Marco polo 16:04, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * One might say ;anyone who feared communism'. Kingdoms had fallen and largely replaced by democracies, but after WWI there was a notion that that was a failed experiment. the two newly emerging (albeit not new) ideologies were communism and nazism/fascism. In Germany, as elsewhere, there was a notion that you should follow one of those two. So if you weren't a communist you voted Hitler (of course that's an oversimplification). Also, the music played by the nazis was much more cheerful that that of the communists. Sounds silly, but that may actually have been a decisive contributor to WWII. DirkvdM 18:22, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * They do say that the Devil has the best tunes... - Eron Talk 20:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the patterns that emerged between the Reichstag elections of May 1928 and July 1932 it's fairly easy to detect the general trend: Nazi votes came in the main from rural and semi-rural communities in the north and east of Germany, and from the various bourgeois parties, including the DVP, the DDP, the Wirtshaft Partei and the DNVP. As Marco quite rightly points out, Catholic voters were largely immune to the Nazi appeal, and the Centre Party held steady, uniting middle and working class voters in their confessional alliance. Urban working-class communities were also immune, holding to the SPD, though some support was lost to the KPD on the extreme left. There is also another class of voter altogether, who seemed to have moved to the Nazis in significant numbers; namely those who had previously not bothered to vote at all. There was a considerable increase in turn-out between the election of May 1928 and that of September 1930, when the Nazi vote increased from just over 800,000 to over six million. While it cannot be absolutely proved that most of these 'new' votes went to the Nazis-and this has been the subject of heated scholarly debate-the Nazi 'boost' did not come from the haemorrhage in the votes of the liberal and conservative parties alone.

One small and interesting fact I noted from studying electoral maps of Germany was that for East Prussia, where Nazi brown almost completely enclosed a 'tongue' of Catholic blue, a tongue that followed to the exact detail the border of Poland prior to the first partition of 1772. Clio the Muse 02:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Pope Benny
In a recent conversation, someone said that the Pope wasn't Catholic. This confused me and I asked for clarification. They didn't have any but they did say that there were a bunch of people worked up about it when he recently visited Rome (recent being near the time of Benedict becoming Pope). I looked through the Pope Benedict XVI article but didn't see anything that would lead to an assertion such as "The pope isn't even Catholic". So could someone maybe shed some light on what might have been referred to when this guy was in Rome? Dismas |(talk) 22:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Read Sedevacantism. That sounds like something its adherents would say.  Corvus cornix 22:28, 5 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Or maybe they're making a distinction between the Roman Catholic Church and the various other churches called Catholic Church. --  JackofOz 01:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If the Pope isn't Catholic then there are a lot of constipated bears in those woods. Gandalf61 08:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * LOL! Thanks all for the responses.  Dismas |(talk) 09:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Gandalf61 - best response i've seen all day :D Dangorironhide 11:03, 9 October 2007 (UTC)dangorironhide