Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2009 May 1

= May 1 =

Merovingian bloodlines
Are there any descendants of the Frankish Merovingian dynasty. I know that there aren't any male heirs left but is there any descendants through daughters of the Merovingian kings. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:52, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know how true it is, but this says that Pepin the Short was a descendant of Clovis I. It that's true, then about half of all Europeans are descended from the Merovingians, through Charlemagne.  .  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are no documented descendants; speculative descendencies have been postulated; the person doing the most active publication on the matter is Christian Settipani. The reliable paternal ancestry of Pepin the Short effectively fails at Arnulf of Metz, his 3G-grandfather, whose parentage is uncertain at best. A speculative line continues back to Clovis the Riparian, Frankish king of Cologne, who is said to have been a "kinsman" of Clovis I. So: [1] no actually documented descent; but [2] speculative descents exist from Clovis the Riparian, who has a nebulous assertion about his kinship to the Merovingians; and [3] most likely there are descendants, simply on a statistical basis, but no one alive has an enumerable descent from the Merovingians.   - Nunh-huh 02:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * (EC with above, roughly the same ideas). That article you city is a mathematical analysis, which shows that if we go back about 1000 years, about 80% of all Europeans are direct ancestors of every person of European descent alive today. The problem is that its not lineage-based, so we need to tie the Merovingians to, say, other European royalty, via a parent-child chain. The best shot is via Arnulf of Metz, who compiled his own genealogy where he claimed his paternal grandmother was the daughter of the Merovingian Chlothar I, who was a son of Clovis the Great. His own account is the only existance of such a daughter, so the claim is tenuous. If taken on its face value, it presents a clear descent, through Arnulf, from the Merovingians to the Carolingians. From there, its a fairly straight shot to Louis the Pious who is fairly reliably, by that time, clearly an ancestor of all of the Kings of Germany and France. Most of the early Kings of Germany/Holy Roman Emporers of the Ottonian Dynasty trace through Gisela (Giselle), a daughter of Louis the Pious. Giselle's brother was Charles the Bald, who provided a long line of French Carolingian kings. Of course, the Carolingians went entirely extinct after Louis V, but Hugh Capet was a grandson (via his mother) of Henry the Fowler who himself was a descendant of Giselle (and thus Louis the Pious and the rest of the main line Carolingians). From there, the rest of the Kings of France fall in line. See German monarchs family tree and French monarchs family tree. Once we have those two monarchies tied in, the other major monarchies fall in line quite nicely as well. The lynchpin in this is of course the dubious claims of Arnulf of Metz, however. Still, there are likely other more indirect, but better documented, claims which tie the Carolingians to the Merovingians. That's the key in answering the OP. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Found another possibility: Bertrada of Prüm is clearly the grandmother of Bertrada of Laon who was wife of Pippin the Short, and thus an ancestor of Charlemagne. The problem is that Mrs. of Prüm may be the daughter of the Merovingian Theuderic III or she may not be.  If true, she provides another Merovingian-Carolingian connection.  Her claim does not appear to be much better than Arnulf's however.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Another Merovingian tie-in, this time to the British Isles: Emma (or Ymme) an apparent daughter of Merovingian Theudebert II married King Eadbald of Kent. Given the confused nature of British kingdoms at this time, and the frequent intermarrying, that that bloodline likely continued for some time, and may have survived to the conquest. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  03:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is a considerable literature on the subject. Christian Settipani in Les ancêtres de Charlemagne has offered a plethora of lines of descent from the Merovingians to the Carolingians, only to conclude that none of them should be regarded as certain. There is too little documentation from the Dark Ages to substantiate any line of descent. Any genealogical reconstruction of a Merovingian descent still involves a good deal of speculation. --Ghirla-трёп- 20:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To look at it from another angle, it is reasonably certain that almost every European living at the time of the Napoleonic wars descended from Charlemagne through one or several lines. Since Charlemagne had certainly some admixture of the Merovingian blood in his veins (although we can't reconstruct the details of his descent), we are all Merovingian descendants! --Ghirla-трёп- 20:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

British Army - Essex Regiment in 1944
Hi. I'm trying to research the history of the Essex Regiment during WWII, specifically their role in Belgium and Holland during September-November 1944. The regiment was part of the 56th Infantry Brigade, which by this time was under the command of the 49th (West Riding) Division. Can anyone suggest any sources I should take a look at, either online or books etc. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.196.23.58 (talk) 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's this, which gives a few details about the 2nd Battalion being transferred to the 56th Brigade and fighting in Holland. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You saw this: ?&mdash;eric 17:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

G SUMIT
Recently there was an incident were a civilian was pushed to the ground during protest of the G Summit on the main picture there was minimum of 20 police present at the incident> Is there a law saying even though the police were present in great numbers they can not be a witness to an incident > there was an appeal by the police for witnesses to the incident one can only assume they are either...Un-able to act as a witness or would be un-able to tell the truth of the incident there for deemed untrustworthy...So for clarification is there a law that for impartiality reasons they must try to gain witnesses other than the most honest police department/or is it they do not think the police are honest enough to tell the truth of the incident?Chromagnum (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Assume you mean Ian_Tomlinson. Parts of the incident were caught on video... AnonMoos (talk) 06:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The Independent Police Complaints Commission have announced that, instead of following their normal practice on this and asking another police force to investigate this incident, they will investigate it themselves. They are supposed to be independent of any police force in the UK. This is to deflect or avoid charges of complicity when if they find the police didn't cause Mr Tomlinson's death. I refer you to the last paragraph in the IPCC report.--TammyMoet (talk) 07:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You must be very young and trusting, Chromagnum, if you think that many police officers are so honest that they would willingly step forward to give unbiased, probably incriminating evidence about such an event against a fellow serving officer. In such circumstances, most apparent witnesses would likely claim to have been distracted or unsighted at the crucial moments. If any officers were proved to have witnessed the events and summoned to testify, they would be liable to suffer lapses of memory in the witness box. An officer who voluntarily 'grassed up' one of his or her colleages would find themselves extremely unpopular in the canteen. Most people would behave similarly in similar circumstances, police are only human, and life experience tends to suggest that police are, at best, no more honest that anyone else.


 * I'm sure it would be different in the case of something considered truly reprehensible, like accepting bribes or committing theft, etc (and getting caught at it), but in demonstration crowd control, the police are trained to and expected by their superiors to deploy physical force on anyone they think is involved, as necessary. This incident, while regrettable, will be seen by most officers as an understandable mistake. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Put simply, an investigator will always try to get evidence from someone other than a member of the group suspected of the crime. Given that the investigation at hand is into the police's role in the death, the investigators will want to have third party eyewitness evidence if possible. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 06:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Ancient ruins- location and/or name?
All I've got is a general description. I'm not sure exactly how long ago it was, but I believe I came across the picture I saw somewhere in wikipedia. It was a series of rather large and pretty well-preserved ruins scattered across a rolling green field, for some reason my mind wants me to believe it was somewhere in Eastern Europe, or possibly even Central/Western Asia? I recall the article specifying that the (what once was a) city was a major crossroads and trading hub, and I think there was some Byzantine influence in the architecture. Apparently the location thrived for quite a long time and then faded into obscurity. It's been haunting me, and any suggestions as to the location or name of this place would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.1.254 (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could be lots of places...how about Iznik? It's pretty minor today but was once extremely important. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Ani ? --Xuxl (talk) 14:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or Ephesus? Iblardi (talk) 14:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds very much like a place in Turkey I saw a doco about just recently. It was definitely on a major crossroads and trading hub, and there was certainly some Byzantine influence in the architecture.  It was in a high place, and extremely well fortified against invaders, which required special architectural skills due to the hilly terrain in which they chose to have their civilization.  They flourished for a long time, but then dwindled into such obscurity that the name is all but forgotten today.  The ruins are still there for all to see.  Do you think I can remember it?  Sorry.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno if this is any help at all, but JackofOz's answer reminds me of somewhere Michael Palin visited in a recent series. --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ancient indian quilt image search
Hello, In 2008 I was on a page regarding quilting and there was an image of 15th century indian quilt which had a red background and white embroidery of a family, a tree and small animals. I am desperately trying to locate this image - I have searched the history and cannot find it. Is is possible to source old images used on wikipedia pages?? The page title was likely - ancient quilting or indian quilting. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Many thanks, Emily —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.123.238 (talk) 06:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you certain you have the date correct? Textiles from the 1400s are a bit rare. And Native Americans or India Indian? Rmhermen (talk) 06:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a modern quilt in the section on the tree-of-life motif in the article on Indian quilting. It has a bright red background and white embroidery with figures as you describe. // BL \\ (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

famous literary writers of the 16th century and before
What names come to mind when you read the subject heading? - I'm especially thinking of Italy and France, but classical writers will do too. If you were a C16 Italian, what writers would you most admire?

Thanks - Adambrowne666 (talk) 06:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Renaissance thinkers were very into classical texts, so you're on the right lines with that. For example, Machiavelli (with Leonardo, often considered the epitome of Renaissance man) wrote extensively about the works of Livy. --Dweller (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also Caesar, Ovid, Virgil, Seneca...the big names from classical Rome. A 16th century Italian would also know their own medieval authors, especially if they were also classicists, like Dante and Boccaccio, and probably someone like Guido de Colonna who wrote a Latin version of Trojan War epic. I would suggest searching for "reception of the classics", which is a fascinating field of medieval, Renaissance, and early modern studies. Also, check out medieval literature for pre-16th century authors in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As you specifically ask for Italians there are three obvious choices: Giovanni Boccaccio, Petrarch and Dante Alighieri. Pietro Aretino and as Dweller mentioned Niccolò Machiavelli who wrote some popular plays would also be probable. But they would most likely also have been following some international authors like Desiderius Erasmus and François Rabelais. That is of course only mentioning the major writers. You could check the categories to explore some of the lesser known writers of the time which would probably have been known by a man of letters of that day though largely forgotten by now. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and if you had any reasonable education in those days, you'd be very, very familiar with the complete works of a certain author. --Dweller (talk) 09:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That is interesting. I'm not being sarcastic, I am genuinely ignorant, or misinformed, on this point, and seek to learn. I thought that the Catholic Church generally didn't encourage close study of the Bible at this time in its history, and that this focus on access to the holy scripture was a major reason for, and part of, the Reformation. "If you were a C16 Italian, what writers would you most admire?" Was the Bible available in Italian five hundred years ago? (The Italian language was standardised only relatively recently.)  Or was it only available in Latin? What proportion of Italians with a "reasonable education" could read Latin?  Or are we getting into No true Scotsman territory here?  How many C16 Italians were in a position to admire any writers at all -- both in terms of levels of literacy of the populace, and the ability of writers to convey their meaning through other media (dramatic performances, for instance)? I think the King James Bible has had an influence on the development of literary English in a manner that has been traced and studied over the centuries, but the same might not be true for a less sonorous translation.  Likewise, whatever version was available, C16 Italians might see it as a source of wisdom, or of historical truth, but not necessarily as a literary model, a writer or group of writers to admire. [Sorry, forgot to sign, it is BrainyBabe, but I don't want to do tildes now and mess up the timestamps.]


 * All educated Italians of the Renaissance (actually all educated people anywhere, up to very recently) learned Latin; Italian isn't that far from Latin anyway, although by then they did recognize that there was a difference (Dante's De vulgari eloquentia for example). Some of them were especially good at it, and since this was also the time when many classical texts were being rediscovered, this marks the difference between Medieval Latin and Humanist Latin. The church always encouraged close study of the Bible, as long as it was in Latin (and Bible Latin is relatively easy). So how many people does this actually apply to? Well, in Italy as in any other pre-modern place, very very few. But Italy had more cities and more continuity with ancient culture so there were more educated people there than elsewhere in Europe, which is one of the reasons why the Renaissance began there. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adam, I live and learn! One item I have to take exception to: "all educated people anywhere" learned Latin -- tell that to the Chinese (etc.)! BrainyBabe (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, yeah I thought someone would notice that. Of course, I meant Europeans. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, all - all extremely useful and interestingAdambrowne666 (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

why don't jews eat pork?
why dont practicing jews eat pork? I mean why is it forbidden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.27.137.4 (talk) 07:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Swine Flu. Muslims, too, not just Jews don't eat pork.  Swine have diseases.  Not just Swine Flu, but uncooked pork may have this brain parasite (forgot the name but this is a real pathogen).
 * Anyway, just remember the Swine Flu. 63.19.77.8 (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't do that 63. You'll have a mob of angry pig farmers round at your door. DJ Clayworth (talk) 14:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a statute, ie no reason is given for the Biblical instruction found in Leviticus and in Deuteronomy.

Pig is actually one of many, many animals Jews can't eat. The Bible singles it out (along with certain other animals) because it possesses one of the two signs of being kosher - it has cloven hooves, but does not chew the cud.

Down the years, many people have alleged lots of reasons for this prohibition (see Pork), but at the end of the day, the big man upstairs didn't explain Himself on this one. --Dweller (talk) 07:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I used to glibly assume it was to prevent the possibility of disease, but recently read a suggestion (being one of the alleged reasons mentioned by Dweller) that it was because pigs compete with humans for the same foods, and so are impractical to keep in a difficult habitat. Adambrowne666 (talk) 08:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

@63.19 Trichinosis.

Dietary restrictions are based on a concept of "natural" configuration for foods, and those which are "abominations".......as mentioned by Dweller, an animal which has a cloven hoof but (unlike the "normal" cloven-hoofers, does not chew the cud; or lobsters, which live in the sea (therefore "should" swim) but have legs and walk etc etc. Speculations about health/hygiene reasons are just that - modern speculations (albeit they may have served health-improving functions). The main functional purpose of food taboos is to foster community cohesion, by preventing them from sharing food with (therefore accepting hospitality and friendship from) outsiders. KoolerStill (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * See food taboo. BrainyBabe (talk) 14:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

A muslim friend of mine told me it was actually because pork spoils faster than other meats, and they didn't have fridges thousands of years ago.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * They did not have Muslims thousands of years ago either. I don't think a lot of religious practices have a basis in logic.  Religions often make rules that say you can ignore logic. 65.121.141.34 (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is what I am saying. The idea was there long before it became a religious edict.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In Old Testament days, could it have been Cognitive dissonance? Maybe they could not afford pork, so it was comforting to say "It is UNCLEAN and we do not want it." Like The Fox and the Grapes. Edison (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That sort of suggests that pigs were more highly prized, and therefore more valuable, than other animals. If the general populace didn't eat them, why would they have been valuable?  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Stephen Pinker suggests, in How the Mind Works that the purpose of food taboos is to control the young and impressionable members of your tribe by making it impossible for them to eat with outsiders. I don't recall that he gives very much supporting argument. --ColinFine (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Personally, I side with Pinker; I'd say it applies not just to food taboos but to all arbitrary religious edicts - still, I suppose the question is why that particular taboo was chosen by the early abrahamic religions. 00:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As an interesting tangent, eating pork is allowed in the Jewish faith, but only under very specific circumstances. If you are in danger of death through starvation I understand that you MUST eat pork if it is available. To not do so could result in your death, which would be suicide and is seen as the greater evil. I have also heard that the flesh of humans is remarkably similar to the taste of pork, and that during the holocaust, the smell of cremation could be compared to that of cooking bacon, although i cannot remember where I heard this. Interestingly, if u buy pet food, none of it is ever pig based. Perhaps this is something to do with all parts of the animal being used for human consumtion, but also perhaps to ensure that pets do not turn on their owners? russ (talk) 00:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In the beginning, god created all the animals and beasts of the field and said that they were all GOOD. God also tells Noah when the ark lands on Ararat, all the animals are good to eat. God then changes its mind and declares some animals less and some more clean than others. Does this not mean that it is for us to choose what we eat?

french women -- urban legend?
okay so I searched the Internet but couldn't find whether this is an urban legend, it sounds like it, but then again it sounds like it might have a basis. The allegation is: there is a practice among Parisien women (I guess on the theory of like pheromones) that the women will uh like rub their private parts with their finger and then behind the ear (to transfer to 'scent', pheromes, whatever), so as to be sexualy enticing, have the same sex appeal and mystique that, uh, a v****a does?. I mean it sounds vaguely plausible that htere would be something to that, but on the other hand it sounds like an urban legend that they'd want to smell like v****s. So which is it? Thanks!94.27.137.4 (talk) 14:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia isn't censored, feel free to say vagina
 * vagina vagina vagina


 * You mean they don't use kippers like British women do? Or was it haddock?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Decorum and censorship are too utterly different things. If some people still wish to display decorum, please respect that. Mowsbury (talk) 01:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * In the interests of accuracy, I should point out that you are also allowed to type "vulva". (The vagina is the internal structure: a little anatomy goes a long way.) We have an article on vaginal secretion, which may guide you.  The last sentence of Pheromone states, "no pheromonal substance has ever been demonstrated to directly influence human behavior in a peer reviewed study. ".  Assuming that children and the sexually inexperienced will be reading this at some point (e.g. when it is archived), I feel the need to point out that the fish comment above is a joke, a red herring if you like. Human sexual variety is wide, and in all probability there are individuals, in Paris nightclubs or elsewhere, who do as the OP suggests. But then again, not everything that has been imagined has yet come to pass: no homoerotic spelling bees yet, for instance. BrainyBabe (talk) 16:05, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Red herring. Very good, very good. I never expected that sort of humour from you, BrainyBabe. You have surpassed me and yourself. Makes me embarrassed, now. I'll just go and bang my head on the floor for a few minutes. Well done.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the reference was to the automobile -- the volvo. Bus stop (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't ya love that "new car" smell! Edison (talk) 18:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I first came across a reference to this practice by Alex Comfort in The Joy of Sex. I don't know whether any research was carried out in order for it to appear in there! --TammyMoet (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I first heard of it in (i think) Even Cowgirls Get the Blues. —Tamfang (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

yeah okay it doesn't have to be about pheromes, it could just be for the smell of what's new ___ cat. 79.122.87.75 (talk) 17:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, you don't need to dance around the word. Colloquially, you could just say vulva, vagina, pussy, cunt, lady parts. Either way, there's no need to construct coy hints in this sort of discussion. Anyway, the practice sounds unlikely to be widespread, given the lack of references we've turned up. 80.41.127.59 (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Jokes and witticisms aside, the practice is not necessarily as ridiculous as one might initially think. As BrainyBabe points out, humans pheromone are thought not to exist (and certainly have not been demonstrated, despite what the emails caught by your spam filter might have you believe). However, humans can still have involuntary, physiological responses to odors, both attractive and aversive. One might well be attracted to the smell of vaginal secretions if one has been previously exposed to it in a favorable context. And for many men, a previous sexual encounter many well serve that purpose. This concept - olfactory conditioning - occurs all the time. That said, I have no idea whether it does occur. Rockpock  e  t  01:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm a Frenchman living in Paris so now I better understand why I'm so excited by women in my city... More seriously, I always feel surprised by urban legends I heard in the US about the Frenchs and sex. Is that an urban legend that American people have a trouble with sex ? ;-) . TCY (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That hurt. But Alex Comfort was a good guy--80.137.202.2 (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The Mongols
The Mongols were hilarious. They were completely unknown for thousands of years, and then suddenly they ended up raping and pillaging and annihilating every living creature in their path across half the planet for a short time, until they all went home again. What happened there? I've read all the articles and everything, but what I really would like to know is what caused a previously peaceful people to turn into the Devil's own horde?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 15:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Who says they were peaceful before? They were one of the steppe peoples, like the earlier Huns, who had been invading and pillaging China and India and Europe for at least a thousand years already. For the Mongols in particular, perhaps it has something to do with Temujin's wife being abducted, and his quest to get her back, which involved lots of exciting murderous revenge (although I don't know how true it is because it certainly sounds like a legend). Maybe from there it was a short step to conquer the world. But certainly they were not peaceful before. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm playing Mediaeval Total War II and the Pope keeps telling me to go on a crusade, but I can't because the Mongols have killed everyone before I even get there. I just turn up and there's all these undefended cities. Plus they've just massacred Poland. What is it with these people? I haven't been able to fight a battle for days, because there is no-one left to fight, besides the Mongols, whom I can't find anywhere, because they don't take over the cities and stay in them, they just massacre everyone and go and live in the forest. I'm in the 13th century now, so they should be going home soon, unless the game is not historically correct and they just massacre the rest of Europe, in which case I will have to change my capital city from London to Jerusalem or Accra or somewhere where the Mongols seem to have stopped attacking, presumably because there's no-one left to attack....besides me.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As noted, the Mongols were not unknown (ask the Chinese about them!) and were hardly unique. While the original Mongol tribe was confined to a small area before Ghengis Khan took them on their 'round the world tour, there were other central asian tribes which had been pillaging the Eurasian landmass for quiet a long time.  Consider the Avars, the Huns, the Bulgars, the Khazars, the Tatars, etc. etc.  Interestingly, from a gaming perspective, the same problem occurs in the Paradox Interactive game Crusader Kings where the best strategy for dealing with the Crusades is to let the Mongols take care of it for you, and then go in and mop up afterwards.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't forget the XiongNu! DOR (HK) (talk) 08:06, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * That's actually what I am doing, but it's making the whole idea of a 'wargame' irrelevant, because there is no-one left to kill besides the Mongols who are hiding in the trees. I haven't had a battle for days. I'm sure, as we speak, they are getting ready to attack my small force of a couple of hundred troops with millions of swarming barbarian hordes. Bloody annoying, this. Why can't I just slaughter the French again?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you tried going to the games website/forums and looking for threads that deal with this problem? There may be mods or other ways of dealing with this.  Its been a while since I played any of the Total War games, but the Paradox games I play generally have a strong modding community where if there is a problem like this, someone has come along and tweaked the game to fix it.  There may also be an official patch released by the publisher which tweaks the Mongol AI to stop this problem.  I would really recommend surfing those forums and websites if this is becoming a problem... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In MTW, since you already know they are coming, you can build up eastern Europe with millions of your own best cavalry before they get there. Or leave the Poles or Hungarians as a buffer state and they will generally not advance any further west before disappearing again. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Anyway, getting back to my original question. Why was Europe so attractive?--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 19:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Because it was there? They were also depressing real estate values in the Middle East and China (no doubt so that they could pick up property WITH NO MONEY DOWN), so it's not like Europe was somehow special. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, everything was plunderable until they found an ocean (an even then that didn't stop them from trying. And China was much more attractive; they stopped invading Europe and the Middle East because of the situation there. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The steppe grasslands extended basically along a line of latitude a little south of 50°N from Mongolia to Hungary; it was only within the grassland steppe zone that horse nomads could fully maintain their ancestral nomadic lifestyle, and breed horses in the large numbers needed for military uses without impinging on settled agriculture. So the most natural direction of movement for horse nomads was actually in the east-west direction -- though they generally had to go south of the steppes to find rich civilizations to plunder... AnonMoos (talk) 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, they didn't differentiate "Europe" from "Asia". It was all one continuous land mass (and remains so to this very day).  The western Russians were also not troubled by any artificial barrier (the Urals) when deciding to conquer territory all the way to Vladivostok.  --  JackofOz (talk) 22:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. It just happened. My troops were slaughtered by a ridiculous number of Mongols, somewhere in Persia (how the hell I got that far I can never say) but what I am interested in is what actually started all this, besides the Temujin legend.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the computer game. In real life, try population pressure. Goths, Visi-goths, Franks, Vandals (not our kind), Vikings......all nomadic tribes keep moving because they need fresh pastures (if they are herders) or fresh supplies of game (if they are hunters). Normally they would move about over a large range, seasonally. Changes in climate and increased populations mean they have to go further afield, which means treading on another group's territory - and toes. Hunting weapons easily become weapons of war. The losers have to move on, putting more pressure on the people next down the line. Fast-moving peoples, especially if equipped with horses,would find just taking what they need from other people more profitable than herding and hunting.(This requires that there be enough other people within reach to make this a consistent reliable source of food and property). In Europe, most of these people settled down,initially as overlords exacting "taxes", eventually becoming    the agrarian populations that some of today's countries are named for. In post-Mongolian times, population pressure caused people to move south into Africa; most of the southern African tribes have been there for less than 500 years. Similar pressures much earlier caused people to move into the Americas. They were all trying to survive; killing, looting, and pillaging were successful survival strategies for them. I don't know of any settled peaceful peoples, with enough to eat and nobody attacking them, suddenly "deciding" to turn vicious just for the fun of it.KoolerStill (talk) 11:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To expand upon KoolerStill's answer, an example of the above effect during Roman times can be found at the article Migration Period. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  12:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A lot of it makes sense. And as an update on the game - not that you need it, I just find it fascinating, even at the grand old age of 36 - my five surviving knights from the previous massacre are walking around Europe trying to find these Mongols and they all seem to have gone home.--KageTora (영호 (影虎)) (talk) 13:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The 1976 novel "Steppe" by Poul Anderson (minorly notorious among some SF fans) is about a future society playing an ultra-elaborate game simulating Mongol invasions etc. AnonMoos (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'll bite. What makes the novel minorly notorious?  (I've likely read more words by Anderson than by any other single writer, and I've never heard of it before; I guess I'm some other SF fans.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Oops, it's actually by Piers Anthony, I guess (much more typical of novels by him than those by Poul Anderson, so I should have known). Anyway, because so much of the novel is a straight up medieval history lesson recast into a rather puerile form... AnonMoos (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Why was Europe so attractive?" As I understand it, Europe was not a high priority target for the medieval Mongols. China was. Central Asia and the Middle East were. But China was the real prize. Anyway, lots of info at Mongol Empire. Pfly (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Children's Laureate
Children's Laureate is without doubt wrong when it says that ther is a £10,000 biannual bursary. It may be the case that there is a £10,000 biennial bursary. However all the ghits I have found just say "The biennial post has a bursary of £10,000" and I don't feel that that is clear whether the £10,000 is for the entire 2 years or is an amount per year (thus £20,000 total). Can anyone provide a categoric reference of what happens please. -- SGBailey (talk) 22:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Critques of Status in Anthropology
Does anyone know of an anthropological (or otherwise) critique of the idea of status on the basis of it not being monotonic? That is, high status and low status people only exist relative to a ranking, but it is not obviously the case that the ordering has to be consistently ordered (a>b, b>c but a<c, for example). Anyone come across this idea before? --TeaDrinker (talk) 22:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Superficial search led me to Finding an appropriate order for a hierarchy based on probabilistic dominance, which applies to animal (not human) behaviour. According to the abstract, "methods of ranking individuals in a dominance hierarchy that use transitivity of relationships may obscure irregularities" and the paper suggests a procedure using paired comparison analysis. I don't know how helpful this is, but it might be a start. ---Sluzzelin talk  07:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Outstanding, thanks, that is much closer than anything I was able to turn up. --TeaDrinker (talk) 15:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)