Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 12

= December 12 =

Japanese mythology
Why does Japanese mythology have a sun goddess and a moon god when pretty much every other mythology is the other way around? --108.225.115.211 (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It has been suggested that Shintoism was previously a strongly matriarchal religion. Japanese society became more patriarchal when Buddhism was introduced.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   00:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * WP says moon gods are more common worldwide than moon goddesses, see Lunar deity. --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 09:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, in the ancient near-east, the moon deity Sin was male (sometimes considered to be part of a Shamah-Sin-Ishtar sun-moon-venus trio, of whom only Ishtar was a goddess). Traditionally in the Germanic languages, the word for "sun" had feminine grammatical gender, while the word for "moon" had masculine grammatical gender (as is still the case in modern standard German today)... AnonMoos (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * An excursion regarding Germanic languages, moon has the masculine gender in Norwegian too, in both variants of the written language. The word for sun can be both masculine and feminine. Geschichte (talk) 14:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Germanic genders are the reason—other than a sly attempt to invert Greek & Roman mythology—for Tolkien's making Arien (the Maia who steers the sun) female and Tilion (the Maia who steers the moon) male in The Silmarillion. Deor (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The citation needed tag is well-deserved. Clicking through the deities listed in that article, you will come across a lot of goddesses. Our article on solar deity discusses the assertion more clearly. Also re: Tolkien, I think it was more because Tolkien's works were a rather unabashed adaptation of Norse mythologies. Not just grammatical gender, Sól/Sunna was female and the lunar deity, Máni, male.--  Obsidi ♠ n   Soul   07:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee Painting
Does anybody know where I can find any information about this painting of the Golden Jubilee of Queen Victoria? It's Westminster Abbey in the painting, I think. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 02:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in the Royal Collection. Queen Victoria's Golden Jubilee Service, Westminster Abbey; painted between 1887 and 1890 by William Ewart Lockart (1846-1900). Commissioned by Queen Victoria. Oil on canvas, 233.3 x 306 cm. There's a little more information here, although I can't find the exact location of the painting today. Alansplodge (talk) 11:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Our article about the painter—the site linked by Alansplodge above appears to have a typo in the surname (at least, a Google Books search for the "Lockhart" spelling returns about 34 results, whereas the "Lockart" spelling returns none). Deor (talk) 11:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Gosh, and they are usually such reliable chaps - heads will roll, no doubt. Some information about the depicted event on 21 June 1887, is on the Queen's own website. In six month's time we'll be having a similar bash, only this time at St Paul's Cathedral - the view is better inside (no medieval clutter) and it's a good excuse for a longer procession. But probably no Indian cavalry this time. Alansplodge (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It helps to have the name right when you search! According to this page, James McNeill Whistler is one of the people depicted in the painting; "he may be seen on one side of the triforium, Leighton on the other." The British Museum has a key, which would tell you who everybody else is. Alansplodge (talk) 13:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Medieval clutter! That stuff makes Westminster much more interesting. St Paul's is boring in comparison. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but for great occasions of State, it's nice if people can see what's going on. A huge stone wall called the Quire Screen bisects the Abbey; those on one side can't see what's going on at the other, unless they put up those tawdry video screens that they had at the recent Royal Wedding. St Paul's however, is all grand vistas, unless you're stuck behind one of those ugly monuments. Alansplodge (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Back to the point... may be the reason why there's a print of the painting in Hawaii. They might even be depicted. Alansplodge (talk) 16:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * And finally; according to the National Library of Wales, the original is in Windsor Castle, or at least it was in 1974. Alansplodge (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pro-islam Parties in Europe
Which political parties of each European nation has a Pro-Islamic stance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.230.117 (talk) 03:21, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you mean Islamic parties, I think there is only the Finnish Islamic Party, but they aren't quite registered I think. Islamic party has a list of all Islamic parties, none from Europe, unless you count Turkey. IBE (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bosniaks are majority Islamic, so looking at List of political parties in Bosnia and Herzegovina there are at least three parties described as Bosniak parties. I'm not sure how secular or "Islamist" any of these is in political ideology, but they would at least be parties made up of mostly Muslim people.  -- Jayron  32  05:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Albania is 70% Muslim, so List of political parties in Albania likely has many parties which are majority Muslim (again with the caveat that any number of these may be described as having a "secular" political ideology). Likewise, if one considers Kosovo to be an independent republic, then List of political parties in Kosovo may also have some majority Muslim parties.  -- Jayron  32  05:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was an Islamic Party of Britain, which ran candidates for a few seats representing heavily-Muslim areas in several recent elections. In France, Kenza Drider of Avignon, who continues to wear niqab in defiance of the French burqa ban, is campaigning in the French presidential election, 2012, to overturn that ban; but she appears to represent no party and to be appealing as much, or more, to the principle of individual liberty under the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen as to any specific religious or secular doctrine. [Wikipedia, in either French or English, seems to have little about Mme Drider, but you can find several YouTube videos about her campaign and quite a few articles (230,000 through Google) in mainstream media (AP, Boston Globe, CBC, Guardian.UK, etc.), many of them rather brief.] —— Shakescene (talk) 06:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * There was a short-lived Muslim Democratic Party {Moslim Democratische Partij) in Belgium. See the lists under Islamic party and Category:Islamic political parties. —— Shakescene (talk) 07:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Hizb ut-Tahrir has a significant number of followers in Europe, and uses the word "party" (hizb) to describe itself, but it might not be the kind of party you were looking for. Gabbe (talk) 07:24, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What is a pro-Islamic stance? HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This. For example, in Britain, the Respect Party has previously appealed in particular to Muslim voters, so it might be fair to call it "pro-Islamic", although many of its voters were not Muslims, and it was not an Islamist party. Warofdreams talk 10:09, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that often people are confused when they encounter someone voicing the classic democratic stance of toleration, and think that just because toleration is advocated it also means that one is actively supporting whatever is tolerated. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that a reply to me? If so, I don't believe that I've made that mistake. Warofdreams talk 16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, sorry if I was unclear, that was a comment on the OP, which I suspect made that mistake. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

No I mean which parties are Pro-Islamic in that sense which party do Muslims mostly vote for and support for like in UK, Labour Party gets is considered Muslim community's favourite party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.209 (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the UK, the Muslim Council of Britain set up the website "Muslim Vote 2010" to encourage Muslims to vote in that General Election. Statistics on this page show you are correct in that 35% of Muslims said they would vote Labour. There are 3 Muslim Tory MPs too, out of the 8 Muslim MPs in total. I'd suggest having a good look at that website and draw your own conclusions regarding your question. --TammyMoet (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't sound overwhelming -- 35% for Labour vs a total of 28% for the parties of the existing coalition. Not sure what the other 37% intend. --Trovatore (talk) 04:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I believe it is incorrect to assume that a party that "Muslims mostly vote for and support" would necessarily have "a Pro-Islamic stance". Say, for example, that Muslims in a given country are poorer than the population in average. If so, then Muslims might tend to vote for and support the party most favourable to poor people. Or if the Muslim population is significantly younger than the rest of the population they might vote for the party with the most "pro-youth" stance. But being "pro-poor people" or "pro-youth" hardly makes a party "pro-Islamic". Such a party would just happen to be have a stance in favour of something correlated with the Muslim population. See "Correlation does not imply causation" for more info on this. Gabbe (talk) 11:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Casualties among USCT during ACW (regarding casualties among white troops)
Hello learned people ! I am translating for WP french Military history of African Americans in the American Civil War (since the role of Negro troops during ACW is here quite unknown - & BTW thanks for the text)  and I wonder if Herbert Aptheker has expressed correctly (in terms of statistics) the fact that losses have been far more important among the Black than among the White troops.

In the WP article he is quoted (cf end of § "Union Army") as follows : « ''We find, according to the revised official data, that of the slightly over two millions troops in the United States Volunteers, over 316,000 died (from all causes), or 15.2%. Of the 67,000 Regular Army(white) troops, 8.6%, or not quite 6,000, died. Of the approximately 180,000 United States Colored Troops, however, over 36,000 died, or 20.5%. In other words, the mortality rate amongst the United States Colored Troops in the Civil War was thirty-five percent greater than that among other troops, notwithstanding the fact that the former were not enrolled until some eighteen months after the fighting began. » (from Herbert Aptheker  Negro Casualties in the Civil War'' p. 16 )

That « mortality rate 35 % greater among Black troops » bothers me. Is it statistically correct ?

Thanks beforehand for your answers, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The mathematics in the section you quote above are correct, so it will only be wrong if the casualty figures themselves are incorrect (or the passage has been quoted inaccurately). Many more people fought (and died) than the Regular Army and US Colored Troops figures given, so care would have to be taken with other sources over who was and was not being counted. That said, the original historian cited would surely have been pulled up for inaccuracy (or deliberate distortion) long before now if that had been the case. I don't find the figure surprising, and actually would have expected it to be somewhat higher, since to my very limited knowledge of this (to me) distant foreign conflict the Colored Troops were generally much more poorly armed and equipped, and were often utilised somewhat as "cannon fodder" by White officers. I'm sure more knowledgeable US Refdeskers will be able to address your query more pertinently once they're up and about (it still being early in the morning for them). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.13 (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While the issues of late salary, late and poor supplies, and use as cannon fodder existed for both black and white, but were perhaps more severe among black troops, we also have to "Remember Fort Pillow!" and the selective maltreatment of blacks who attempted to surrender). Rmhermen (talk) 17:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Those stats do look suspicious to me. Why are some 7/8 of the total troops not included in the stats ?  Maybe those were state militias ?  Unless a good explanation is given for this, I would be disinclined to use such statistics. StuRat (talk) 18:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes the vast majority were state troops, not regulars. US Volunteers (although a few were drafted, 2%). 75.41.110.200 (talk) 04:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot to all, t.y. Arapaima (talk) 10:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Building options reccomendations
My university course has just set me two of my least favourite sort of essay, the ones where they say choose any building from any time and write about it. One I need to describe the way the designers created a comfortable living and working environment without resorting to mechanical devices to light, heat, cool and ventilate the place, and the other has to be explained in terms of any philosophical theory.

I find myself confronted by literally millions of options all around the world, and without the slightest idea which would even be worth the further study I would need to undertake to find out whether they are worth writing about at all. Once I know what buildings to study, the research and essay writing are easy for me, but I am always incapable of making any sort of decision, particularly one like this.

So, I seek suggestions, any interesting ideas of places I could look into, websites that list a few of the more suitable buildings, anywhere I could go that might offer a small sample to choose between, particularly unusual suggestions would be most appreciated here.

HS7 (talk) 11:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * They are quite different tasks. On the first one, do you want to do an old building, or a new one? If an old one, you will need to find a kind of vernacular architecture that doesn't need any external input for heating or lighting. It won't be in western Europe, that's for sure. Maybe traditional adobe construction of the southern US/Mexico? Africa? If you want to look at new buildings, you need to search under ecological construction, green building and similar terms until you find something that you like, and then you will want to write about it. Some concepts that are meant to be input-free are passive house and earthship. I'm sure you can find more. The second essay is harder to know where to start. Were you given any lectures about relevant philosophies? Itsmejudith (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think you need to exclude Western Europe at all. Ventilation, solar exposure and insulating mass are not altogether foreign to Europe. Sod houses, housebarns, cathedrals, solar chimney, etc. are were used in western Europe. Do fireplaces count as mechanical? Rmhermen (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Clearly, there are a variety of buildings on which you could write decent essays. I'm sure that's why these titles have been set.  I'm assuming, from your description, that the two essays can be on different buildings.  For the first one, you'll need to ensure that the building does indeed not use mechanical devices, so you'll either want a suitable traditional building (the Encyclopedia of Vernacular Architecture should be useful for finding a style which fits the bill) or an appropriate modern one (in which case, a good place to find possible examples might be articles on natural ventilation etc or broader terms such as ecological design).  For the second, pretty much any non-vernacular building can be explained in terms of philosophical theories.  When I had to write a similar essay on two architectural works, I chose a chapel from the Arts and Crafts Movement, and the Parc de la Villette.  I'd suggest, similarly, either choosing something local to you, or something which strikes you as interesting and likely to reward further study. Warofdreams talk 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm a bit confused about the phrase "without mechanical devices" as it relates to lighting. Normal electric lights don't require any mechanical device in the house, although the generators at the power plant are mechanical.  Do they mean to include this ?  If so, you'd want solar panels and windmills with batteries so you could still run the lights when it's dark with no wind.  Of course, windmills are also "mechanical devices", but avoiding those in favor of non-mechanical devices like oil lamps seems rather backwards, if your object is to be eco-friendly.


 * You could also do without the batteries if you send excess electricity to the power plant during the day and draw from it at night, perhaps this is allowed as long as there's no net usage from the grid ? If all electrical devices are also banned, along with fossil fuels, then lighting becomes rather tricky.  You could get some light from a wood-burning fireplace, but that's not very eco-friendly unless you also need all the excess heat generated.  If all else is prohibited, perhaps some glow-in-the-dark panels might provide extra light for an hour or so after sunset (probably not enough to read by, but enough to find your way to bed, at least). StuRat (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Public buildings of quite recent times were lighted and ventilated without mechanical devices. Somerset House, for instance, was lighted using candles and lamps, and heated by fireplaces, as were all buildings of its era. One could equally construct a philosophical discussion of the subject that describes the building as an expression of the power of the state as expressed in classical form on an enormous scale.  Acroterion   (talk)   18:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * There's nothing "mechanical" about a light bulb, it has no moving parts. Candles and lamps aren't eco-friendly, as they produce smoke and greenhouse gases and use up fossil fuels (or other fuels which are environmentally expensive to produce).  They fare poorly when compared with compact fluorescent lights and LED lights. StuRat (talk) 20:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I think by lighting they meant for as long as possibly during the day, only resorting to artificial lights at night. Devices as used in the environmental design context, so I am assured, means anything by which extra energy can be put into the system, such as burning fuel or drawing on electicity supplies. However, thank you all for your ideas, I will look closely into all of these and hopefully find just what I want amongst them. HS7 (talk) 19:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I re c o mm end that you see List of buildings and Category:Buildings.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 20:06, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wavelength, what's the significance of the underlined "c" and "mm" ? StuRat (talk) 18:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

GK Question
Which city has few hundreds of interesting buildings one of which is unusual and called "Black octopus eyes" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.111.228.20 (talk) 12:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * That phrase returns no relevant Google hits at all. Therefore, it cannot be the case that any building is widely known, either formally or informally, by that expression.  The question is therefore unanswerable (and the first part of the sentence is no help either). --Viennese Waltz 13:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The only octopus-related building I can find is in Chiswick, London. Not black, though. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That one hasn't been built yet. Sam Blacketer (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Just because it gets no relevant Ghits doesn't mean the building is not well known. The phrase is almost certainly a distorted translation of a more familiar name.--Shantavira|feed me 14:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that the building itself was not well known, I said that it was not well known by that expression, i.e. the English phrase given. --Viennese Waltz 14:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Shantavira. It could be transalation. Any clues in that direction?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.83.244.183 (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, this is today's World Atlas Quiz question. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course, this does mean that we get more chance of answering the question - there is a further clue at the previous link ("There are a few hundred buildings in the city, and some of them exceed 150 ft.in height. New construction, however, must comply with the city's strict fire department rules, and not rise above a certain height.") and on the World Atlas Facebook page we get "Consider Europe, if you like". Maybe these help. Not for me, though... - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The answer turns out to be Graz, Austria, and thanks to you, we can have a shot at the 100 dollar prize in subsequent days. The building referenced would be the Kunsthaus Graz. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:06, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

African leaders
Are there any major, global organizations whose leader is a Sub-Saharan African -- except the IAAF? Geschichte (talk) 14:46, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "leader"? The recent 2011 United Nations Climate Change Conference was chaired by South African minister Maite Nkoana-Mashabane.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems pretty clear to me. The OP is looking for international organizations and their chief executive officers.  A conference is not an organization. --Viennese Waltz 14:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm grateful for your personal interpretation, although I was not asking for it. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If you aren't looking for currently serving ones, Kofi Annan was Secretary-General of the United Nations, served from 1997 to 2006. You can hardly get more major or more more global. Rmhermen (talk) 16:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Emeka Anyaoku was Commonwealth Secretary-General from 1990 to 2000. Alansplodge (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The leaders of the African Union, perhaps unsurprisingly, all qualify. None of the other major intergovernmental organisations seem to have current African leaders. There are at least two NGOs, however - the head of Greenpeace is South African, and the head of Friends of the Earth is Nigerian. Shimgray | talk | 21:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Abdou Diouf, former President of Sénégal, is the Secretary general of the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, which includes 75 member states and participating governments. --Xuxl (talk) 08:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The executive secretary of the Community of Portuguese Language Countries is Domingos Simões Pereira from Guinea-Bissau. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Navanethem Pillay, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, is from South Africa. She used to be President of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. BrainyBabe (talk) 15:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a look at List of international organization leaders in 2011, and the very first name was Jacques Diouf from Senegal, Director-General of FAO. The President of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development is from Kenya, the Secretary General of OPEC is from Nigeria. StAnselm (talk) 07:34, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Who Built the Pyramids?
I'm looking for a simple answer but I may not find one, I have found giant walls of text on the Harvard magazine and pbs.org. So far I know legions of salves is a hollywood myth, some sources suggest there were dedicated pyramid builders but I'm largely in the dark. --Drogonov 14:57, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Giza Necropolis and Egyptian pyramid construction techniques should be helpful. Basically, it was just construction workers, like anyone building a skyscraper today. (Imagine if in 5000 years everyone assumes modern cities were built by slaves!) I admit that my first thought when I saw the question was "Elvis" - he also built Stonehenge, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Construction workers" is a little oversimplified -- there seem to have been full-time professionals quarrying the stones and supervising operations, but much of the raw muscle power involved in moving and lifting the stones would have been uncompensated peasants paying a labor tax or corvee... AnonMoos (talk) 15:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * When I was young, my history book went into detail about large-scale construction in Egypt. During the farming periods, there was little construction because people were needed to do farming. Then, in the off-months, the farmers had no work. So, they were paid by the government to do construction. When farming kicked back in, they went back to farming. It was related to the "New Deal" projects in the U.S. - which is why I remembered it. When I looked my nephew's history book, all of that changed. It said that all construction in Egypt was done by slaves. So, I don't know which is correct. My personal opinion is that my history book was more correct (sure, there may have been some slaves, but overall it is more likely that it was a social program by the government). -- k a i n a w &trade; 15:38, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think that either of those two options is mainly correct. Most probably, the great mass of workers were neither being paid nor were they slaves -- they were peasants fulfilling corvee obligations... AnonMoos (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Dr. Zahi Hawass, Undersecretary of State for the Giza Monuments agrees with AnonMoos; "The pyramid builders were not slaves but peasants conscripted on a rotating part-time basis, working under the supervision of skilled artisans and craftsmen." Dr Hawass again on this site; "Ancient Egypt had a system called family support - every household in the north and the south used to participate in building the pyramid instead of paying tax. The pyramid was a national project for the whole nation." He explains more on this audiofile. Alansplodge (talk) 17:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We have a fairly detailed article at corvée, which explicitly mentions the Pyramids as a product of Egyptian corvée labour. Shimgray | talk | 21:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Bettany Hughes covered this in Engineering Ancient Egypt. If my memory serves, she said some of the simple work was from agricultural labour idled by the Nile flood, but the technical stuff (stone masonry and moving stones and installing them) was done by a large group of skilled, paid volunteer labour. She cited the extensive and quite comfortable workers' villages that surrounded the site, with family dwellings in the usual style of the age (not barracks or prisons), with large and diverse kitchens and bakeries to produce the food everyone needed, the respectable religious burials given to deceased workers (not chucked in a hole like discarded equipment) and extensive evidence of good quality healthcare for workers (such as skilled bonesetting). Workers got imported olive oil, fruits, beef and other meat, and beer from a local brewery (Ancient Egyptian cuisine has some mentions of this); slaves get bread and water, not dates and beef and beer. There is graffiti on some stones celebrating the work team that installed it and making fun of other teams inferiority - the sure sign of someone proud of his work, not a slave cowering under Edward G. Robinson's whip.  The pyramids were the pinnacle (sic) of Egyptian society and religion, like middle-ages European cathedrals - you simply wouldn't want to tarnish your theologically-pure brilliant-white resurrection machine by having it worked on by a bunch of unmotivated foreign pagan slaves. 87.115.92.26 (talk) 03:19, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Muslim empires Europe
Which European nations were part of a Muslim empire like Ottoman Empire meaning other Muslim empires ruled some part of Europe? I already know which European nations were part of the Ottoman Empire. Also, I know that Spain and Portugal were part of an Islamic empire or dynasty and it was Umayyad Caliphate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.23.209 (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that's about it. I don't see any others in Category:Former Muslim countries in Europe. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Parts of Italy and France were also part of the Ummayad caliphate (and then various emirates). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sicily apparently was part of the Fatimid Caliphate. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * See Emirate of Sicily. The Mark of the Beast (talk) 23:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Umayyad caliphate fractured into many entities in Spain. AnonMoos (talk) 21:43, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Golden Horde, during its Islamic period, ruled much of Russia and Ukraine. Malta was part of the Fatimid Caliphate, along with the aforementioned Sicily, and other small areas of southern Italy.  Some parts of south-eastern Europe were parts of earlier Islamic empires, before the Ottoman one.  The Safavid Empire was present in the Caucasus, as more briefly were the Timurid Dynasty and Abbasid Caliphate.  There is more on most of this in Islam in Europe. Warofdreams talk 23:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about a tiny part of this question here: Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2011 December 4 Also look up Countries of the Empires of the Arab Caliphates, the Sporcle quiz, with accompanying comments, which inspired me to ask that question (although the quiz asks only about the Caliphates but asks about countries on all continents). —— Shakescene (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Although Cyprus has been occupied by Asians, Europeans, Asians, Africans, Asians, Africans, Europeans, Asians, Europeans then Asians, Cyprus is considered part of Asia but the rest of the large islands in the Mediterrean Sea are part of Europe. The ancient Greeks considered the ancient Eygptians as Asiatic. Notwithstanding, the Mamluk empire conquered Frankish Cyprus. Sleigh (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Elevating a principality to a kingdom
In the pre-WWI era, several principalities (of which I shall use the examples of Serbia and Montenegro) became kingdoms. In both examples, it appears that there was no change in actual sovereignity, as each had achieved de facto independence years earlier (Serbia in 1867 and Montenegro in 1858), but in 1882 and 1910 respectively, they each just decided to become kingdoms. Aside from the obvious change in diplomatic protocol when dealing with the leaders of each kingdom, are there any other factors that could be a problem if a truly sovereign principality wished to become a kingdom? Would a legitimate independent state have had any issues with other countries recognizing a newly created king? Thanks, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 23:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose kingdoms with more history might resent them being so "uppity", but they would likely get used to it in a few years. StuRat (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Monaco and Liechtenstein have more history than some places that are kingdoms, but they seem content to remain principalities. What could anyone do about it if either place decided to raise its status to a kingdom?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  00:43, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the case of Serbia, I suppose it was a result of being formally recognized as independent in the Treaty of Berlin (1878). As far as Montenegro goes, this article says the major powers couldn't argue with the country becoming a kingdom after recognizing the kingdom-ness of its neighbors. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Wonderful article; thank you! But it does confirm my suspicion that there was an unspecified group of "European powers" that gave consent (either implicitly or explicitly) to Montenegro's elevation to kingdom. What would have happened if they had not consented for whatever reason? As Jack of Oz noted, there's not a whole lot that they could do, right? Maybe snub the Montenegrin representatives at court with cutting witticisms? Or perhaps more importantly, not give Montenegro a king-level seat at the treaty table whenever a treaty was needed? Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 01:01, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No. To not recognise the valid status of a sovereign state is to deny recognition to the state's very legitimacy and existence and right of self-determination.  Individual royal personages and their fawning and supercilious minions might feel that nouveau-royals are at best second-class royals, but the state could not have a basis for any such attitude.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  01:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * While declaring yourself a kingdom against the will of your neighbors is a rather minor insult in itself, I could imagine it being one of a series of insults that eventually leads to war, and perhaps them denying you recognition would be the next counter-insult in the sequence. StuRat (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What would "the will of your neighbors" have to do with anything? Surely these are internal matters for the country alone to determine.  If the country was already a principality, and the neighbors had no problem with that, why would it concern them if it became a kingdom?  I'd have thought congratulations would be more in order than criticism.  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  02:28, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Obviously if everyone and their brother declares themselves a kingdom, that somewhat degrades the value of your own kingdom. There was a time when such formalities mattered.StuRat (talk) 04:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The will of your neighbors has everything to do with sovereignty... if you extend "will" to mean force too. Sovereignty, and it's legal cousin, jurisdiction is all about power. Anyone can declare themselves a country, or sovereign, but ultimately it's all about whether or not the country can maintain it. To digress, I'm unfamiliar with the principality / kingdom distinction so I find this interesting. It also weighs in on another topic I'm familiar with but undereducated in.... and that is the modern concept of statehood, which is really a relatively modern concept. This question actually probably has a lot more to do with that concept than with anything more modern. Shadowjams (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you think your neighbor is calling itself a kingdom inappropriately, the first thing you can do, before going to war, is to refuse to receive its ambassadors. Cutting off diplomatic relations can be a very powerful tool, especially if it's an important and powerful state that does it. --Xuxl (talk) 09:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * But that's what I don't get: what is inappropriate about a sovereign country deciding to change its status from whatever to a kingdom?  Who outside that country gets to have a say in this, and why?  --   Jack of Oz   [your turn]  09:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Again, you're working from a modern conception of statehood. That conception is far from standard even today. It certainly wasn't even close to standard prior to 1946 or so. Before 1918... forget it. You're talking about soverign like it's a binary concept. I agree with you, that's how I approach it today too. Seems instinctual to me. But I don't think that's how it was seen for most of human history, even modern history. And I'm coming from a common law legal background so I have a host of British legal precedents from the Magna Carta on affecting my judgment. I really like that history, I think it's one of the singular triumphs of common law legal systems, but... it was not the standard for most nations for most of history. If that system feels natural today it's because of British and American prominence after the first two world wars, and the rise of a common Europe that pushed those common institutions forward.


 * International law today, which is really what the OP's question is driving at, is contentious. Europe seems to have a different view of it than the U.S. (or China for that matter) does... and even within Europe the UK bucks against the EU a bit more than some. As for the original question, I wish I knew the origins if the principality/statehood distinction... it seems like a specific question, probably based in the sovereignty of those original nations. You've exposed a very real gap in my understanding, and I suspect others. I hope you can fill in the appropriate articles if you figure out the answer. Shadowjams (talk) 11:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

In earlier times, when the duchy of Prussia, principality of Hanover, etc. were elevated to kingdoms, this did receive some kind of loose "approval" within German or European diplomatic structures, but I don't think this was very relevant to Serbia or Montenegro at the times you mentioned... AnonMoos (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, one of the more popular ways of getting into trouble for British officers during the Napoleonic wars was to sign charters implicitly recognizing Napoleon's titles. For a long time, on the continent he was Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine, Mediator of the Helvetic Confederation, etc., and in Britain he was Monsieur Bonaparte. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, the pope and/or Holy Roman Emperor made the call on these things. Ottokar I of Bohemia got recognized as a king in exchange for supporting one claimant for the imperial throne; he later switched sides and got recognized by the other claimant and the pope. Prussia got upgraded to kingdom with the approval of the Holy Roman Empire. Hungary, much earlier, got its kingdom status from the pope. King Henry VIII's Irish Parliament declared Ireland a kingdom, but it was not universally recognized as a kingdom until the Catholic Mary I came to power and the pope OK'd it. Other kingdoms were created by Napoleon or afterward by the Congress of Vienna. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 01:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It can be confusing as to the protocol on when and how and in what way an otherwise sovereign prince of a lower "rank" can be elevated to a "King". For example, see the convoluted way that the King in Prussia was created and maintained (that is King in Prussia and not King of Prussia) as a title for the Electors of Brandenburg.  Some nominal Kingdoms were functionally less "independent" than other lower titles.  The Kings and Queens of Navarre especially had a weak title, though nominally a King, they were frequently treated as vassals of the larger states around it, especially Castile, Aragon and France; the title was frequently attached to various French noble titles, especially after all but Basse-Navarre was annexed by Aragon.  The actual seat of the Nevarrese king for a long time was in Pau, which wasn't actually in Navarre, where the King of Navarre preferred to reside as Viscount of Béarn and which was the more prestigious title.  Henry III King of Navarre actually spent much of his time in the French Royal Court in Paris, at least until he took up leadership of the Protestant forces in the French Wars of Religion.  And sometimes, kings become kings simply by declaring themselves so.  Zog of Albania was a President of Albania who just had himself crowned King.  -- Jayron  32  05:50, 15 December 2011 (UTC)